Yet more on the tree of life

Do All Life Forms Fall into a Nested Hierarchy?

 

 

Casey Luskin June 11, 2015 4:57 AM |

 

A biology graduate student and alumnus of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design recently contacted me to ask where ID comes down on common descent. I explained to him that in the ID camp, some folks accept common descent while others are skeptical. ID proponents can respectfully disagree on that question (and others too), while agreeing on the powerful evidence for design in nature. But my correspondent asked about an argument in favor of common ancestry he had heard that basically went like this:

All life forms fall within a nested hierarchy. Of the hundreds of thousands of specimens that have been tested, every single one falls within a nested hierarchy, or their evolutionary phylogenetic tree is still unknown and not sequenced yet.

This claim (which he wasn't making, by the way) is far from true. We constantly find organisms that don't fit neatly into a phylogenetic tree. Or, what happens is evolutionary biologists attempt to force-fit organisms into the tree only by invoking processes like convergent evolution and loss of traits. In other words, evolutionary biologists are forced to propose that an organism's traits did not arise through common ancestry, because common ancestry fails to explain the data. Does this mean that evolutionary biologists reject common ancestry when they find data that doesn't fit a tree? No, because they assume common ancestry; they aren't interested in testing it. So when they find data that doesn't fit a tree, they just find ways to force-fit the data into the tree. Here's what's going on:
The first and primary assumption of all evolutionary phylogenetic classification methodologies is that common ancestry is true. This assumption nearly always goes unquestioned, even when the data doesn't support it. As Elliott Sober and Michael Steele explain, "It is a central tenet of modern evolutionary theory that all living things now on earth trace back to a single common ancestor," and "This proposition is central because it is presupposed so widely in evolutionary research." They acknowledge that cladistics assumes that a tree exists, and common ancestry is correct:

Whether one uses cladistic parsimony, distance measures, or maximum likelihood methods, the typical question is which tree is the best one, not whether there is a tree in the first place. (Elliott Sober and Michael Steele, "Testing the Hypothesis of Common Ancestry," Journal of Theoretical Biology 218 (2002): 395-408 (emphasis added).)

Likewise, the assumption is made explicit, and primary, in the UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology's introductory page on cladistics:

What assumptions do cladists make? There are three basic assumptions in cladistics:
1.Any group of organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor.

One textbook cited by Stephen Meyer in Darwin's Doubt concurs about this assumption:

The key assumption made when constructing a phylogenetic tree from a set of sequences is that they are all derived from a single ancestral sequence, i.e., they are homologous. (Marketa Zvelebil and Jeremy O. Baum, Understanding Bioinformatics (New York: Garland Science, 2008), p. 239.)

Together, these authorities make a crucial point: cladistics and other phylogenetics methods do not demonstrate common ancestry; they assume it. In other words, these methods don't test whether all organisms fit into a nested hierarchy (i.e., phylogenetic tree). Rather, evolutionary systematics assumes that common ancestry is true and therefore all organisms belong within a nested hierarchy, and then it uses methods to force-fit any organism into the tree, even if that organisms has traits that don't fit neatly within the tree. Thus, Michael Syvanen -- a rare evolutionary biologist who is open to the possibility that universal common ancestry is false -- laments the pro-tree biases of treebuilding algorithms:

Because tree analysis tools are used so widely, they tend to introduce a bias into the interpretation of results. Hence, one needs to be continually reminded that submitting multiple sequences (DNA, protein, or other character states) to phylogenetic analysis produces trees because that is the nature of the algorithms used. (Michael Syvanen, "Evolutionary Implications of Horizontal Gene Transfer," Annual Review of Genetics, 46:339-356 (2012) (emphases added).)

Common ancestry, therefore, is a starting assumption about the data -- not a conclusion from it. Another key lesson is this: just because you see evolutionary biologists creating an impressive-looking phylogenetic tree doesn't mean that all of the organisms or their traits shown within that tree fit neatly into a nested hierarchy (i.e., a tree structure). One could cite many examples of organisms that don't fit cleanly into a tree. Here are a few:Sahelanthropus tchadensis is widely touted as a human ancestor that lived about 6-7 million years ago, sometime very soon after the supposed split between the human line and the chimp line. But it's rarely mentioned that this specimen doesn't fit into the standard hominin tree at all. Why? Because it has a flat face, a humanlike quality, which shouldn't exist that far back:

If we accept these as sufficient evidence to classify S. tchadensis as a hominid at the base, or stem, of the modern human clade, then it plays havoc with the tidy model of human origins. Quite simply, a hominid of this age should only just be beginning to show signs of being a hominid. It certainly should not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age. Also, if it is accepted as a stem hominid, under the tidy model the principle of parsimony dictates that all creatures with more primitive faces (and that is a very long list) would, perforce, have to be excluded from the ancestry of modern humans." (Bernard Wood, "Hominid revelations from Chad," Nature, 418 (July 11, 2002):133-35.)

Because of this, some are skeptical that S. tchadensis belongs on the human line. If that's the case then its flat face represents convergent evolution. And if it is on the human line, then you are forced to propose that later species on the human line lost this trait. Either way, S. tchadensis creates major problems for a nice, neat, nested hierarchy of hominins that is consistent with the chronology of the fossil record. Much further back, there are organisms like Diania, thought to be an early arthropod ancestor from the Cambrian period, but which actually cause huge problems for the arthropod tree:

[W]e should caution that dinocaridids, Diania and other potential stem-arthropods typically express mosaics of arthropod-like characters, which makes resolving a single, simple tree of arthropod origins problematic. Indeed, the position recovered here for Diania between Radiodonta and the ostensibly similar-looking Schinderhannes is surprising. Diania, Schinderhannes and the remaining Arthropoda all share the putative apomorphy of jointed trunk appendages, and yet the trunk limbs of Diania resemble the frontal appendages of Anomalocaris and other radiodontans, which themselves lack trunk limbs entirely. If this is a secondary reduction in fossils like Anomalocaris, then Diania may in fact occupy a more basal position with respect to Radiodonta, Schinderhannes and Arthropoda; a scenario that would be more consistent with their fairly simple body morphology. (Liu et al., "An armoured Cambrian lobopodian from China with arthropod-like appendages," Nature, 470 (February 24, 2011): 526-530 (internal citations omitted).)

The reason the authors talk about "mosaics of arthropod-like characters" is that these organisms don't fit into an orderly, sequential, hierarchical, treelike pattern as predicted by common descent. They present a mishmash of traits, not distributed in a treelike pattern that shows some sequential, hierarchy ordering arthropod traits. This is a famous problem in arthropod evolution, rightly described as a mess. As one paper observes: "Arthropod phylogeny is sometimes presented as an almost hopeless puzzle wherein all possible competing hypotheses have support." That's the opposite of a nested hierarchy.  Nor is it just within the Cambrian phyla that we find such an array of phylogenetic misfits. Among the animal phyla more generally, we see traits that make it difficult to create a treelike representation of relationships.
The argument cited by the grad student noted that one reason an organism's classification isn't understood is that "their evolutionary phylogenetic tree is still unknown and not sequenced yet." That's a bit of a rudimentary argument, but it probably means that until we sequence an organism's genome, we don't know where it belongs in the tree of life. But sometimes after we sequence an organism's genome we find that its place in the tree of life is even less clear than it was before.
This is exactly what happened after the comb jelly genome was sequenced. As I wrote last year, comb jellies (phylum ctenophora) have muscles and complex nervous systems, but molecular studies suggest they branch off very close to the base of the animal tree. However, sponges -- which branch off later according to molecular data -- lack such structures. This means that either complex muscle and nervous cells were lost in sponges (even though these are complex, useful traits you'd probably want to keep around) or muscles and brains evolved convergently in later animals. Either way, you're left with a situation where comb jellies don't fit neatly into the animal tree. They show a mosaic of traits that shouldn't be the case under common descent.
Here's one more classic example from the animal phyla: symmetry. Animals can be divided up in many different ways. Some display bilateral symmetry, basically meaning they have a right half and a left half. Such "bilaterian" phyla include vertebrates, arthropods, and mollusks. Others have radial symmetry, where their symmetry is distributed in an essentially circular fashion around a central axis. Phyla with radial symmetry include cnidarians (e.g., jellyfish), ctenophores (comb jellies), and echinoderms (e.g., star fish and sea urchins).
From an evolutionary perspective, you might expect an animal tree to divide up neatly according to whether organisms display bilateral or radial symmetry. Not so. Echinoderms are placed much closer to vertebrates than they are to cnidarians and other phyla with radial symmetry. In fact, in another weird twist, vertebrates (with bilateral symmetry) are thought to be much closer to echinoderms (with radial symmetry) than they are to other bilaterian phyla like the arthropods, mollusks, or annelids. This grouping is made on the basis of early developmental processes. Echinoderms and vertebrates are both deuterostomes, meaning that early in development the first opening in the blastopore becomes the anus rather than the mouth. The upshot is this: animal symmetry is not distributed in a treelike pattern.
Yes, a critic might object that larval stages of echinoderms can have bilateral symmetry. But exactly the same can be said of some cnidarians, which are very far from echinoderms in the animal tree -- showing, again, that symmetry is not distributed in a treelike pattern.
In any case, an evolutionary biologist could decide to group phyla according to early developmental processes, or according to symmetry, and that's fine. If you weight one trait heavily, you'll get one tree. But switch that weight to another trait and you'll get another, conflicting tree. Either way, when you use one character set to create your tree, then the other character set is no longer distributed in a treelike fashion, and vice versa. That's a major problem.
Another good example of an organism whose genome posed problems for phylogenetic classification after it was sequenced is birds. As we reported last December, the sequencing of various bird genomes led to the unexpected conclusion that many types of birds that were previously thought to be closely related -- water birds, birds of prey, and songbirds -- evolved their groups' defining traits convergently. As Nature put it, "the tree of life for birds has been redrawn" by this study. The problem was, once genomic data was sequenced and understood, many basic habits and lifestyles of birds no longer fit into a nested hierarchy.
Again, there are innumerable examples of organismal traits that don't fit into a treelike pattern. But here are two more that came out recently. 
In April, Science Daily reported a study that looked at how different marine organisms swim ("Convergent evolution: Diverse sea creatures evolved to reach same swimming solution"). The scientists found that organisms as diverse as cuttlefish (a mollusk), the black ghost knifefish (a vertebrate), and the Persian carpet flatworm (phylum platyhelminthes) all use the same method of swimming:

The ability to move one's body rapidly through water is a key to existence for many species on this blue planet of ours. The Persian carpet flatworm, the cuttlefish and the black ghost knifefish look nothing like each other -- their last common ancestor lived 550 million years ago, before the Cambrian period -- but a new study uses a combination of computer simulations, a robotic fish and video footage of real fish to show that all three aquatic creatures have evolved to swim with elongated fins using the same mechanical motion that optimizes their speed, helping to ensure their survival.These three animals are part of a very diverse group of aquatic animals -- both vertebrate and invertebrate -- that independently arrived at the same solution of how to use their fins to maximize speed. And, remarkably, this so-called "convergent" evolution happened at least eight times across three different phyla, or animal groups, supporting the belief that necessity played a larger role than chance in developing this trait.

Now they are welcome to invoke convergent evolution if they like, but it's striking how each of these widely diverse organisms has a very similar mode of swimming, where the length of one undulation of the animal's fins divided by the average amplitude of the corresponding sideways movement gives you a ratio of about 20. You can see how distantly related (according to the usual evolutionary paradigm) these similar-swimming organisms are by looking at a tree diagram from the original paper. Also in April there were striking reports of a new vegetarian theropod dinosaur that had traits that made it very difficult to classify within the standard dinosaur tree:

Although closely related to the notorious carnivore Tyrannosaurus rex, a new lineage of dinosaur discovered in Chile is proving to be an evolutionary jigsaw puzzle, as it preferred to graze upon plants. Chilesaurus boasted a proportionally small skull, hands with two fingers like Tyrannosaurus rex and feet more akin to primitive long-neck dinosaurs.

Theropods, of course, include the meat eaters Velociraptor and T. rex, yet this species was a vegetarian. It thus poses a severe puzzle for evolutionary classification, as an article in The Guardian acknowledged:

Fossil hunters in Chile have unearthed the remains of a bizarre Jurassic dinosaur that combined a curious mixture of features from different prehistoric animals. The evolutionary muddle of a beast grew to the size of a small horse and was the most abundant animal to be found 145 million years ago, in what is now the Aysén region of Patagonia.

The discovery ranks as one of the most remarkable dinosaur finds of the past 20 years, and promises to cause plenty of headaches for paleontologists hoping to place the animal in the dinosaur family tree.

"I don't know how the evolution of dinosaurs produced this kind of animal, what kind of ecological pressures must have been at work," said Fernando Novas at the Bernardino Rivadavia Natural Sciences Museum in Buenos Aires.

The technical paper in Nature puts it this way:

For a basal tetanuran, Chilesaurus possesses a number of surprisingly plesiomorphic traits on the hindlimbs, especially in the ankle and foot, which resemble basal sauropodomorphs. These features are here considered as secondary reversals that might be related to a less-cursorial mode of locomotion. Furthermore, derived features of the dentary and teeth shared by Chilesaurus, sauropodomorphs and therizinosaurs are interpreted as homoplasies related to herbivorous habits. ... Chilesaurus represents an extreme case of mosaic evolution among dinosaurs, owing to the presence of dental, cranial and postcranial features that are homoplastic with multiple disparate groups. Using quantitative morphospace analysis, we explored morphospace occupation of different skeletal regions in Chilesaurus with respect to a variety of avian and non-avian theropods. This shows that Chilesaurus has a ceratosaur-like axial skeleton, a 'basal tetanuran' forelimb and scapular girdle, a coelurosaur-like pelvis, and a tetanuran-like hindlimb. General ankle and foot construction does not group with any theropod clade, probably as a result of the characters shared by Chilesaurus, sauropodomorphs and herrerasaurids.

Science Daily explained in less technical terms why this species, with its set of traits resembling many different types of dinosaurs, is difficult to classify:

Other features present in very different groups of dinosaurs Chilesaurus adopted were robust forelimbs similar to Jurassic theropods such as Allosaurus, although its hands were provided with two blunt fingers, unlike the sharp claws of fellow theropod Velociraptor. Chilesaurus' pelvic girdle resembles that of the ornithischian dinosaurs, whereas it is actually classified in the other basic dinosaur division -- Saurischia. The different parts of the body of Chilesaurus were adapted to a particular diet and way of life, which was similar to other groups of dinosaurs. As a result of these similar habits, different regions of the body of Chilesaurus evolved resembling those present in other, unrelated groups of dinosaurs, which is a phenomenon called evolutionary convergence.
Chilesaurus represents one of the most extreme cases of mosaic convergent evolution recorded in the history of life. For example, the teeth of Chilesaurus are very similar to those of primitive long-neck dinosaurs because they were selected over millions of years as a result of a similar diet between these two lineages of dinosaurs.
Martín Ezcurra, Researcher, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham said: 'Chilesaurus can be considered a 'platypus' dinosaur because different parts of its body resemble those of other dinosaur groups due to mosaic convergent evolution. In this process, a region or regions of an organism resemble others of unrelated species because of a similar mode of life and evolutionary pressures. Chilesaurus provides a good example of how evolution works in deep time and it is one of the most interesting cases of convergent evolution documented in the history of life.

What we see here is a dino that doesn't fit with the dino tree not just because it's a herbivorous theropod, but also because different parts of its body appear similar to different types of dinosaurs. Through convergent evolution and loss of traits, you can always find a way accommodate such quirky data. However the bottom line is that organisms like these are the opposite of finding "All life forms fall within nested hierarchy." We explain further in our curriculum Discovering Intelligent Design:

You may recall the "main assumption," mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, that Darwinian evolutionists use when constructing trees: similarity implies inheritance from a common ancestor. But what about situations where that assumption is clearly untrue -- i.e., when two organisms share a trait that their supposed common ancestor could not have possessed? A striking example is the [skull] similarity between marsupial and placental "saber-toothed cats," which are classified as very different types of mammals due to their two distinctly different ways of bearing young.
According to current evolutionary theory, the common ancestor of these two cats was a small rodent-like mammal with a very different body plan. Thus, their highly similar skull structures had to develop independently and could not have been inherited from a common ancestor.
Common descent does not explain these similarities. Evolutionists try  to explain this evidence by claiming these distinctly different cats evolved the same traits independently through convergent evolution.

Does this sort of data absolutely refute universal common descent? Taken on a case-by-case basis, no of course not, and we're not claiming it does. What it shows, collectively, is that the evolutionary case is a lot weaker than is routinely claimed. We commonly -- if not constantly -- find organisms whose traits don't fit into a hierarchical tree.
I like how we conclude on this topic in Discovering Intelligent Design:

Perhaps the main assumption of phylogenetic trees should be rewritten as: "similarity implies inheritance from a common ancestor, except when it does not." Rather than being a helpful solution for neo-Darwinists, convergent evolution undermines the reasoning used to construct phylogenetic trees.

In fact, maintaining that "All life forms fall within a nested hierarchy" requires you to ignore huge amounts of data. ID proponents who doubt common descent have, I would say, ample reason for doing so.

 

On reasons to doubt the trinity

On reasons to doubt the trinity II

The Bible's standard re:marriage:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

MARRIAGE:
The union of a man and a woman as husband and wife according to the standard set out by God. Marriage is a divine institution, authorized and established by Jehovah in Eden. Marriage brings into being the family unit, the family circle. Its basic purpose was the reproducing of the members of the human family, to bring into existence more creatures of the human kind. Jehovah the Creator made male and female and ordained marriage as the proper arrangement for the multiplication of the human race. (Ge 1:27, 28) The first human wedding was performed by Jehovah, as described at Genesis 2:22-24.

Marriage was designed to form a permanent bond of union between man and woman, that they might be mutually helpful to each other. Living together in love and confidence, they could enjoy great happiness. Jehovah created woman as a mate for man by using the man’s rib as a base, thereby making woman man’s closest fleshly relative on earth, his own flesh. (Ge 2:21) As Jesus pointed out, it was not Adam but God who said, “That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” The wording of this text makes it evident that monogamy was the original standard for marriage in the eyes of Jehovah God.—Mt 19:4-6; Ge 2:24.

Marriage was the normal way of life among the Hebrews. There is no word for bachelor in the Hebrew Scriptures. The basic purpose of marriage being to have children, the statement of blessing by Rebekah’s family is understandable: “May you become thousands times ten thousand” (Ge 24:60), also Rachel’s appeal to Jacob: “Give me children or otherwise I shall be a dead woman.”—Ge 30:1.

Marriage was a matter affecting the family, and not only the family but the entire tribe or patriarchal community, for it could have an effect on the strength of the tribe as well as its economy. It was natural and seemed necessary, therefore, that the selection of a wife and the arrangement of all contractual and financial matters connected with it should be decided upon by the parents or guardians involved, though the consent of the parties was sometimes sought (Ge 24:8) and romantic attachments often accompanied the arrangements. (Ge 29:20; 1Sa 18:20, 27, 28) The initial steps or proposals were generally made by the parents of the young man, but sometimes by the father of the girl, especially if there was a difference of rank.—Jos 15:16, 17; 1Sa 18:20-27.

It seems to have been generally customary for a man to look for a wife within the circle of his own relations or tribe. This principle is indicated by Laban’s statement to Jacob: “It is better for me to give [my daughter] to you than for me to give her to another man.” (Ge 29:19) Especially was this observed among the worshipers of Jehovah, as exemplified by Abraham when he sent to his relatives in his own country to get a wife for his son Isaac rather than to take one from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom he was dwelling. (Ge 24:3, 4) Marriage to nonworshipers of Jehovah was frowned upon and strongly discouraged. It was a form of disloyalty. (Ge 26:34, 35) Under the Law, marriage alliances with persons of the seven Canaanite nations were prohibited. (De 7:1-4) However, a soldier might marry a captive virgin from another foreign nation after she had undergone a purification period, during which she mourned her dead parents and got rid of all features of her past religious connections.—De 21:10-14.

Bride-Price. Before the marriage contract was concluded, the young man or the father of the young man had to pay to the girl’s father the bride-price, or marriage price. (Ge 34:11, 12; Ex 22:16; 1Sa 18:23, 25) This was doubtless regarded as compensation for the loss of the services of the daughter and for the effort and expense required of the parents in caring for and educating her. Sometimes the bride-price was paid in services to the father. (Ge 29:18, 20, 27; 31:15) In the Law there was an established purchase price for an unengaged virgin who was seduced by a man.—Ex 22:16.

Ceremony. As to the wedding itself, the central and characteristic feature was the solemn bringing of the bride from her father’s home to her husband’s home on the date agreed upon, in which act the significance of marriage as representing admission of the bride into the family of her husband found expression. (Mt 1:24) This constituted the wedding in patriarchal days before the Law. It was altogether a civil affair. There was no religious ceremony or form, and no priest or clergyman officiated or validated the marriage. The bridegroom took the bride to his house or to the tent or house of his parents. The matter was publicly made known, acknowledged, and recorded, and the marriage was binding.—Ge 24:67.

However, as soon as marriage arrangements had been made and the parties were engaged, they were considered bound in marriage. Lot’s daughters were still in his house, under his jurisdiction, but the men engaged to them were termed Lot’s “sons-in-law who were to take his daughters.” (Ge 19:14) Although Samson never married a certain Philistine woman but was only engaged to her, she was spoken of as his wife. (Jg 14:10, 17, 20) The Law stated that if an engaged girl committed fornication, she and the guilty man were to be put to death. If she was violated against her will, the man was to be put to death. However, any case involving an unengaged girl was handled differently.—De 22:22-27.

Marriages were registered. Under the Law marriages, as well as births resulting from the union, were recorded in the official records of the community. For this reason we have an accurate genealogy of Jesus Christ.—Mt 1:1-16; Lu 3:23-38; compare Lu 2:1-5.

Celebration. While the wedding itself had no formal ceremony, there was, nevertheless, a very joyous celebration of weddings in Israel. On the day of the wedding, at her own home the bride usually made elaborate preparations. First she would bathe herself and rub herself with perfumed oil. (Compare Ru 3:3; Eze 23:40.) At times assisted by woman attendants, she put on breastbands and a white robe, often richly embroidered, according to her financial status. (Jer 2:32; Re 19:7, 8; Ps 45:13, 14) She decked herself with ornaments and jewels, if she was able to do so (Isa 49:18; 61:10; Re 21:2), and then covered herself with a light garment, a form of veil, that extended from head to foot. (Isa 3:19, 23) This explains why Laban could so easily practice a deception on Jacob so that Jacob did not know that Laban was giving him Leah instead of Rachel. (Ge 29:23, 25) Rebekah put on a head covering when she approached to meet Isaac. (Ge 24:65) This symbolized the subjection of the bride to the bridegroom—to his authority.—1Co 11:5, 10.

The bridegroom was likewise arrayed in his best attire and often had a handsome headdress and a garland on his head. (Ca 3:11; Isa 61:10) Escorted by his friends, he would leave his house in the evening for the home of the bride’s parents. (Mt 9:15) From there the procession, accompanied by musicians and singers and usually by persons bearing lamps, moved toward the home of the bridegroom or to the house of his father.

The people along the route would take great interest in the procession. The voices of the bride and bridegroom would be heard in exultation. Some, particularly maidens bearing lamps, would join the procession. (Jer 7:34; 16:9; Isa 62:5; Mt 25:1) The bridegroom might spend considerable time at his home and, then again, some delay might take place before the procession would leave the home of the bride, so that it would thus be quite late, and some who were waiting along the way might get drowsy and fall asleep, as in Jesus’ illustration of the ten virgins. The singing and exultation might be heard quite a distance ahead, those hearing it making the cry: “Here is the bridegroom!” The attendants were ready to greet the bridegroom when he came, and those invited to the marriage supper would enter the house. After the bridegroom and his entourage had gone into the house and closed the door, it was too late for tardy guests to enter. (Mt 25:1-12; 22:1-3; Ge 29:22) It was looked upon as a gross insult to decline the invitation to the marriage feast. (Mt 22:8) The guests might be provided with robes (Mt 22:11), and their respective places at the feast were often designated by the one extending the invitation.—Lu 14:8-10.

Friend of the Bridegroom. “The friend of the bridegroom” had a large share in the arrangements and was looked upon as bringing together the bride and groom. The friend of the bridegroom rejoiced in hearing the voice of the groom conversing with the bride and now could feel happy that his duties had been blessed with a successful conclusion.—Joh 3:29.

Proof of Virginity. After the supper the husband took his bride into the nuptial chamber. (Ps 19:5; Joe 2:16) On the wedding night a cloth or garment was used and then kept or given to the wife’s parents so that the marks of the blood of the girl’s virginity would constitute legal protection for her in the event she was later charged with lack of virginity or of having been a prostitute prior to her marriage. Otherwise, she could be stoned to death for having presented herself in marriage as a spotless virgin and for bringing great reproach on her father’s house. (De 22:13-21) This practice of keeping the cloth has continued among some peoples in the Middle East until recent times.

Privileges and Duties. The husband was head of the house, and the final decision on matters affecting the welfare and economy of the family were left to him. If he felt that the family would be adversely affected, he could even annul a vow of his wife or daughter. This authority evidently also belonged to the man when he was engaged to a woman. (Nu 30:3-8, 10-15) The husband was the lord, master of the household, and was considered the owner (Heb., baʹʽal) of the woman.—De 22:22.

Proverbs 31 describes some of the duties of the wife toward her husband, or owner, which included the household work, the making of and care for clothing, even some of the buying and selling, and general supervision of the household. The woman, while being in subjection and being in a sense the property of the husband, enjoyed a fine status and many privileges. Her husband was to love her, and this was true even if she was a secondary wife or one who had been taken as a captive. She was not to be mistreated and was guaranteed food, clothing, shelter, and the marriage due without diminution. Also, the husband could not constitute the son of the favorite wife as the firstborn at the expense of the son of the “hated” (or less preferred) wife. (Ex 21:7-11; De 21:11, 14-17) Faithful Hebrew men loved their wives, and if the wife was wise and acted in harmony with God’s law, often the husband would listen to her or approve of her actions.—Ge 21:8-14; 27:41-46; 28:1-4.

Even the unengaged virgin who was seduced by an unmarried man was protected, for if the father permitted, the seducer had to marry the girl and could never divorce her all his life. (De 22:28, 29) If the wife was formally accused by her husband of not being a virgin at the time of marriage and the charge was proved false, her husband was fined and could never divorce her. (De 22:17-19) The woman who was accused of secret adultery, if innocent, was then to be made pregnant by her husband so that she could bear a child and thereby give public notice of her innocence. The dignity of the wife’s person was respected. Intercourse with her during menstruation was forbidden.—Le 18:19; Nu 5:12-28.

Prohibited Marriages. Besides prohibition of marriage alliances with nonworshipers of Jehovah, especially with the seven nations in the land of Canaan (Ex 34:14-16; De 7:1-4), other marriages were prohibited within certain degrees of consanguinity or affinity.—Le 18:6-17.

A high priest was prohibited from marrying a widow, a divorced or violated woman, or a prostitute; he was to marry only a virgin from his people. (Le 21:10, 13, 14) The other priests could not marry a prostitute or violated woman, nor a woman divorced from her husband. (Le 21:1, 7) According to Ezekiel 44:22, they could marry a virgin of the house of Israel or a widow who happened to be the widow of a priest.

If a daughter inherited property, she was not to marry out of her tribe. This prevented the hereditary possession from circulating from tribe to tribe.—Nu 36:8, 9.

Divorce. At the institution of marriage by the Creator, he made no provision for divorce. A man was to stick to his wife, and “they must become one flesh.” (Ge 2:24) A man would therefore have one wife who was considered one flesh with him. It was only after man’s fall and consequent imperfections and degradation that divorce entered in.

In giving the Law to Israel, God did not at that time choose to enforce the original standard, but he regulated divorce so that it would not bring dissolution of the family arrangement in Israel or work undue hardship. However, at God’s due time his original standard was restored. Jesus stated the principle governing the Christian congregation—that “fornication” (Gr., por·neiʹa) is the only valid ground for divorce. He explained that God did not enforce this standard through Moses out of regard for the hardheartedness of the Israelites.—Mt 19:3-9; Mr 10:1-11.

In the Christian congregation, therefore, aside from death, which automatically breaks the marriage tie, the only other way it may be broken is on the ground of “fornication,” which causes the offending one to become one flesh with an illicit partner. It therefore may be used by the innocent party as a ground for dissolving the marriage if that one chooses to do so, and the innocent one may then remarry. (Mt 5:32; Ro 7:2, 3) Aside from making this allowance in case of “fornication” (Gr., por·neiʹa), the Greek Scriptures counsel Christians not even to separate from their mates, whether believers or unbelievers, and require that if they do, they have no sex relations with anyone else.—1Co 7:10, 11; Mt 19:9.

Under the Law a husband could divorce his wife for something ‘indecent’ on her part. This, of course, would not include adultery, for it carried a death penalty. It might be such offenses as great disrespect for the husband or for the house of his father, or something bringing reproach upon his household. The husband was required to provide her with a written certificate of divorce, which implies that in the eyes of the community he had to have sufficient grounds on which to divorce her. The certificate being a legal document, there is the implication that it involved consultation with the older men or authorities of his city. The woman could then remarry, the certificate protecting her from any later charge of adultery. No divorce was allowed a man if he had seduced the girl before marriage or if he had falsely charged after marriage that she was deceptive in claiming to be a virgin at the time of their marriage.—De 22:13-19, 28, 29.

After a divorce if a woman married another man and this man later divorced her or died, the original husband could not marry her again. This worked to prevent any scheme to bring about a divorce from the second husband or perhaps even his death so the original couple might remarry.—De 24:1-4.

Jehovah hated an unjust divorce, especially where a faithful worshiper of his was treacherously dealt with in order to arrange for another marriage to a pagan woman who was not a member of his chosen covenant people.—Mal 2:14-16; see DIVORCE.

Polygamy. Since God’s original standard for mankind was for the husband and wife to become one flesh, polygamy was not intended, and it is prohibited in the Christian congregation. Overseers and ministerial servants, who are to set the example for the congregation, are to be men having not more than one living wife. (1Ti 3:2, 12; Tit 1:5, 6) This is in harmony with what true marriage is used to picture, namely, the relationship of Jesus Christ and his congregation, the only wife possessed by Jesus.—Eph 5:21-33.

As was the case with divorce, polygamy, while not God’s original arrangement, was tolerated until the time of the Christian congregation. Polygamy had a start not long after Adam’s deflection. The first Bible mention of it is concerning a descendant of Cain, Lamech, of whom it says: “[He] proceeded to take two wives for himself.” (Ge 4:19) Concerning some of the angels, the Bible mentions that before the Flood, “the sons of the true God . . . went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose.”—Ge 6:2.

Concubinage was practiced under patriarchal law and under the Law covenant. A concubine had a legal status; her position was not a matter of fornication or adultery. Under the Law, if a man’s firstborn son was the son of his concubine, this son would be the one to receive the firstborn’s inheritance.—De 21:15-17.

Concubinage and polygamy no doubt enabled the Israelites to increase at a much faster rate, and therefore, while God did not establish these arrangements but only allowed and regulated them, they served some purpose at the time. (Ex 1:7) Even Jacob, who was tricked into polygamy by his father-in-law, was blessed by having 12 sons and some daughters from his two wives and their handmaidens who became concubines to Jacob.—Ge 29:23-29; 46:7-25.

Christian Marriage. Jesus Christ showed his approval of marriage when he attended the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. (Joh 2:1, 2) As already stated, monogamy is God’s original standard, reestablished by Jesus Christ in the Christian congregation. (Ge 2:24; Mt 19:4-8; Mr 10:2-9) Since man and woman were originally endowed with the ability to express love and affection, the arrangement was to be a happy, blessed, and peaceful one. The apostle Paul uses the illustration of Christ as husband and head of the congregation, his bride. It is a prime example of the tender loving-kindness and care that the husband should have for his wife, loving her as his own body. He also points out that, on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband. (Eph 5:21-33) The apostle Peter counsels wives to be in subjection to their husbands, appealing to them through chaste conduct, deep respect, and a quiet and mild spirit. He uses Sarah, who called her husband Abraham “lord,” as an example to imitate.—1Pe 3:1-6.

Cleanness and loyalty in the marriage bond are emphasized throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures. Paul says: “Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.” (Heb 13:4) He counsels mutual respect between husband and wife and the payment of the marriage due.

‘Marry in the Lord’ is the apostle’s admonition, which is in harmony with the practice of ancient worshipers of God in marrying only those who were likewise true worshipers. (1Co 7:39) However, the apostle gives counsel to those who are not married that they may be able to serve the Lord without distraction if they remain single. He says that, in view of the time, those who get married should live ‘as though they had no wives,’ in other words, that they should not devote themselves to the marital privileges and responsibilities to the extent of making this their whole life but should seek and serve Kingdom interests, while not excluding their marriage responsibilities.—1Co 7:29-38.

Paul counseled that just because younger widows expressed the intent to devote themselves exclusively to Christian ministerial activities, they were not to be put on the list of those to be cared for by the congregation; it was better for them to remarry. This is because, he says, their sexual impulses may induce them to go contrary to their expression of faith that might lead to their accepting the congregation’s financial support as hard workers, while at the same time trying to get a husband as well as becoming unoccupied and meddlers. They would thereby bring themselves under an unfavorable judgment. To marry, bear children, and manage a household, while still maintaining the Christian faith, would effectively occupy them, protecting them against gossiping and talking of things they ought not. This would enable the congregation to help those who were actually widows and who qualified for such aid.—1Ti 5:9-16; 2:15.

Celibacy. The apostle Paul warns that one of the identifying features of the apostasy that was to come would be enforced celibacy, “forbidding to marry.” (1Ti 4:1, 3) Some of the apostles were married. (1Co 9:5; Lu 4:38) Paul, in setting forth the qualifications for overseers and ministerial servants in the Christian congregation, says that these men (if married) should have only one wife.—1Ti 3:1, 2, 12; Tit 1:5, 6.

Christians and Civil Marriage Laws. At the present time, in most lands of the earth, marriage is governed by laws of the civil authorities, “Caesar,” and the Christian should normally comply with these. (Mt 22:21) The Bible record nowhere sets out the requirement of a religious ceremony or the services of a clergyman. According to the arrangement in Bible times, the requirement would consistently be that a marriage be legalized according to the laws of the land and that marriages and births be registered where such a provision is made by law. Since the “Caesar” governments exercise such control of marriage, the Christian would be obliged to apply to them for the legalizing of a marriage. And even if he should desire to use the adultery of his mate as a Scriptural ground for terminating the marriage, he must obtain a legal divorce if this is possible. A Christian who remarries without due respect for Scriptural and legal requirements, therefore, would be violating God’s laws.—Mt 19:9; Ro 13:1.

Marriage and the Resurrection. A group of Jesus’ opponents who did not believe in the resurrection asked Jesus a question that was calculated to embarrass him. In answering them, he revealed that “those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.”—Lu 20:34, 35; Mt 22:30.

Symbolic Uses. Throughout the Scriptures, Jehovah speaks of himself as a husband. He considered himself as married to the nation of Israel. (Isa 54:1, 5, 6; 62:4) When Israel rebelled against Jehovah by practicing idolatry or some other form of sin against him, this was spoken of as committing prostitution like an unfaithful wife, providing cause for his divorcing her.—Isa 1:21; Jer 3:1-20; Ho 2.

In Galatians chapter 4 the apostle Paul likens the nation of Israel to the slave girl Hagar, the concubine of Abraham, and the Jewish people to Hagar’s son Ishmael. Just as Ishmael was the son of the secondary wife of Abraham, so the Jews were the children of the secondary “wife” of Jehovah. The tie binding Israel to Jehovah was the Law covenant. Paul likens “Jerusalem above,” Jehovah’s “woman,” to Sarah, Abraham’s free wife. Of this free woman “Jerusalem above,” Christians are the free spiritual children.—Ga 4:21-31; compare Isa 54:1-6.

As the great Father, Jehovah God, like Abraham, oversees the selection of a bride for his son Jesus Christ—not an earthly woman, but the Christian congregation. (Ge 24:1-4; 2Th 2:13; 1Pe 2:5) The first members of Jesus’ congregation were presented to him by “the friend of the bridegroom,” John the Baptizer, whom Jehovah had sent ahead of his Son. (Joh 3:28, 29) This congregational bride is “one spirit” with Christ, as his body. (1Co 6:17; Eph 1:22, 23; 5:22, 23) Just as the bride in Israel bathed and adorned herself, Jesus Christ sees that in preparation for marriage his bride is bathed so that she is perfectly clean without a spot or blemish. (Eph 5:25-27) In Psalm 45 and Revelation 21 she is shown as being beautifully adorned for the marriage.

Also in the book of Revelation, Jehovah foretells the time when his Son’s marriage would draw near and the bride would be prepared, arrayed in bright, clean, fine linen. He describes those invited to the evening meal of the Lamb’s marriage as being happy. (Re 19:7-9; 21:2, 9-21) On the night before his death, Jesus instituted the Lord’s Evening Meal, the Memorial of his death, and instructed his disciples to keep observing it. (Lu 22:19) This observance is to be kept “until he arrives.” (1Co 11:26) Just as in ancient times the bridegroom arrived at the house of the bride in order to take her from her own parents to the home he had provided for her in the house of his father, so Jesus Christ comes to take his anointed followers from their former earthly home, taking them with him so that where he is they may be also, in his Father’s house, in heaven.—Joh 14:1-3.

Evolution science reformation defanged?

With More Information About the Royal Society Meeting, Let's Not Boost Expectations Too High
Evolution News & Views 

Cool. The abstracts for the anticipated upcoming meeting of the Royal Society in London, "New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives," are now available.

The descriptions don't give a sense of what kind of fireworks to expect, if any. Of course, they're purposely written in anodyne prose -- no bomb-throwing. Like this from Gerd Müller, associated (like others organizers) with the Third Way of Evolution, who has spoken about "replac[ing] the Modern [Evolutionary] Synthesis, not merely improv[ing] it." His talk is titled, "The extended evolutionary synthesis":

Since the last major conceptual integration in evolutionary biology - the Modern Synthesis of the 1940s -- the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and of multiple inheritance systems, the -omics revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge regarding the mechanisms of evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the classical Synthetic Theory and others reveal different properties of evolutionary change. A renewed and extended evolutionary synthesis unites pertinent concepts emerging from these novel fields with elements from the standard theory, but it differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities. Whereas the classical theory had concentrated on genes and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasises the role of constructive processes, environmental induction, and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity. Single level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation. Among other consequences, this entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process. The extended evolutionary synthesis complements the traditional gene centric perspective and stimulates research into new areas of evolutionary biology.

We don't want to raise anyone's expectations too high.

Here's a metaphor that may help in clarifying what's happening. Imagine a city surrounded by a high wall. Some precincts within the city are very well mapped and tended. Others, however, have been neglected for decades, or simply allowed to go to ruins. Of late, an intrepid group of builders has moved into the neglected districts, and begun to fix them up. This creates a stir within the city: it's being "extended," and in some ways, improved.

But the high wall is always there, as an absolute barrier to free movement or development. The Royal Society meeting will explore what can be done within the walls of naturalism or materialism, to fix evolutionary theory (meaning theories about the origin and diversification of living things by natural processes). Yet if one reads through the abstracts, long-unsolved problems, such as the origin of life itself (which, pace evolutionary biologists, most definitely is a part of the evolutionary picture), the origin of complex systems, animals, etc. -- all those stand untouched.

Because there is only so much one can do within the walls of naturalism. If life is not the product of undirected physical processes, then one simply will not be able to solve that problem, no matter where one goes within the city. You have to open the gates and see what may be waiting outside, as we do here at Evolution News.


Many of the new evolutionary ideas, mechanisms, and lines of evidence are fascinating and worthwhile in their own right, but the main problems of evolution are unsolved -- because those problems only arise on the assumption that materialism/naturalism is true.

A clash of titans XXXI

File under "Well said" XXXVII

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. Mark Twain

Everyday miracles.

The Ubiquitous Miracles Of Our Existence
Posted by William J Murray

In another thread, I asked daveS why he was an atheist. He responded:

The proposition “there is no god” also appears to me to be consistent with what I observe in the world.

When asked what that meant, he expanded:

Well, I don’t know of any inconsistencies between this proposition and my observations. For example, I’m not aware of a god blatantly intervening in the world, as some people say happens.

I’ve addressed this in the other thread, but this comment is reflective of what a lot of atheists say is a convincing lack of evidence for god: the supposed lack of observed miracles. Atheists think we live in a world that looks like a world without a god. Of course, that’s circular reasoning based upon a groundless assumption; the assumption that what we experience is what we would be experiencing if there were no god and no supernatural commodities – a world dictated by more-or-less predictable cause-and-effect sequences of matter interacting according to intrinsic properties and orderly patterns.

Unrecognized by atheists, however is that therein lies what I call the ubiquitous miracles of our existence. We don’t consider them miraculous because we take them so utterly for granted that we, for the most part, aren’t even consciously aware of these miracles.  We’re blind to the miraculous because the nature of our very existence is miraculous.

1. The miracle of an orderly, predictable experiential context. What if the universe was not orderly? What if the constants and properties that guide matter into patterned behaviors were not constant at all? What if they fluctuated randomly? Why should matter have any consistent properties at all? What holds these properties and forces at certain values?  Without an orderly universe, how would we have any rational thoughts? Nothing would be coherent.  How would we even come into existence unless something was keeping activity in the universe orderly?

2. The miracle of an individual conscious existence. Why should interacting matter become conscious and have individualistic thoughts? How does such a thing even happen? Why should our thoughts be apparently controllable and orderly? How is it that we can seemingly create a virtually unlimited amount of highly complex, coherent ideas/information on demand?

3. The miracle of mind over matter. How is it that without any knowledge whatsoever of how any of it works, we can simply will an action and cause the correct sequences of countless microscopic physical interactions to properly occur to achieve body movement? I was playing with my year-old great granddaughter the other day and she saw me wiggle my eyebrows, then immediately wiggled hers. Okay, she had no idea how to do that, and couldn’t even see herself doing it. How did she wiggle her eyebrows in response? It can’t be anything other than her, in whatever conscious state she has developed at this point, seeing me do a thing and then willing her body to do the same thing, and the her body immediately and correctly translating a pre-language, entirely uneducated intent into countless physico-chemical events that ended up being her wiggling her eyebrows.


I honestly don’t know how anything gets any more miraculous than that which we take for granted every moment of our existence. IMO, the existence of an orderly, predictable world where conscious entities exist and have intentional control (to a large degree) over their physical bodies and thoughts, and the existence of logic and mathematics as functionally valid correspondences to that experience is far, far more profoundly miraculous than if I saw somebody flying or solving a super-complex problem or parting an inland sea. Frankly, I’ve seen “miraculous” faith healings and all kinds of “miraculous” things that most people would simply not believe unless they experience them (and perhaps not even then), and none of it even remotely compares to the ubiquitous, every-day miracles that allow all of us this incredible experience of being deliberate, conscious entities in an orderly, lawfully predictable universe.

1Samuel Ch.17 the Watchtower Society's commentary.

David Versus Goliath—Did It Really Happen?

Some people wonder if the account about David and Goliath is true history or just myth. Did such a doubt cross your mind as you read the preceding article? If so, please consider the following three questions.


1 | Could a man really be some nine and a half feet (2.9 m) tall?

The Bible says that Goliath’s “height was six cubits and a span.” (1 Samuel 17:4) The cubit in question was 17.5 inches (44.5 cm) long; the span, 8.75 inches (22.2 cm). That adds up to about nine feet six inches (2.9 m). Some insist that Goliath could not have been that tall, but consider: In modern times, the tallest man documented was over 8 feet 11 inches (2.7 m) tall. Is it really impossible that Goliath was six inches (15 cm) or so taller? He was of the tribe of the Rephaim, men who were known for their unusual size. An Egyptian document from the 13th century B.C.E. mentions that some fearsome warriors in the region of Canaan were over eight feet (2.4 m) in height. So Goliath’s height, while unusual, is hardly impossible.


2 | Was David a real person?
There was a time when scholars tried to relegate King David to the realm of myth, but that has become harder to do. Archaeologists have found an ancient inscription that mentions “the house of David.” Furthermore, Jesus Christ spoke of David as a real person. (Matthew 12:3; 22:43-45) Jesus’ identity as the Messiah is supported by two detailed genealogies showing that he descended from King David. (Matthew 1:6-16; Luke 3:23-31) Clearly, David was a real man.

3 | Did the events described in the account unfold in a real place?

The Bible says that the battle occurred in the Valley of Elah. But it gets still more specific, noting that the Philistines camped on a hillside somewhere between two towns, Socoh and Azekah. The Israelites were stationed across the valley on the opposite hillside. Were these real places?

Note what a recent visitor to the area says: “Our guide—who was not a religious man—took us to the Valley of Elah. We ascended a path that took us to the brow of a hill. As we looked over the valley, he had us read 1 Samuel 17:1-3. Then he pointed across the valley, saying: ‘There, to your left, lie the ruins of Socoh.’ Turning, he said, ‘Over there, to your right, are the ruins of Azekah. The Philistines camped between those towns, somewhere on the hillsides facing you. So we may be standing where the Israelites camped.’ I thought of Saul and David standing right where I was. Then we descended, and on the valley floor, we crossed a streambed, mostly dry, that was full of stones. I could not help but picture David stooping here to pick up five smooth stones, one of which killed Goliath.” That visitor, like many others, was deeply impressed with the authentic details in the Bible record.


There is no real basis for doubting the truthfulness of this historical account. It involves real people and real places. More important, it is part of God’s inspired Word, so it comes from the God of truth, the One who “cannot lie.”—Titus 1:2; 2 Timothy 3:16.

Bomb thrower David Berlinski doing his thing.

Microbiology v. Darwinism.

Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology
Casey Luskin 

The evolution of antibiotic resistance is typically the result of small changes allowing for survival in a microbe or other organism under special circumstances where the organism faces extremely strong selection pressure due to the presence of some antibiotic drug. In other cases, it is the result of the transfer of pre-existing antibiotic resistance genes from one microbe to another, and the selection of such microbes in an environment containing antibiotics. Even in the first example, evolution does not produce a truly new function. In fact the change produced often makes the microbe less fit when the antibiotic is removed--it reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.

Fitness costs are real, and biological realities like fitness cost and other limits to evolution play a vital role in shaping strategies used to combat antibiotic resistance, antiviral resistance, and pesticide resistance. In fact, were it not for the existence of fitness cost, in many cases antibiotic resistant bacteria would proliferate and resistant strains would soon replace non-resistant strains. Because of fitness costs, resistant strains are outcompeted by non-resistant bacteria once selection pressure is relaxed, allowing doctors to combat antibiotic resistance through various drug usage strategies.

Yet under the approach adopted by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in its critique of Explore Evolution (EE)[1], organisms are treated as if they are nearly infinitely-plastic; evolution is viewed as if it can do anything. If the NCSE were right--which thankfully it isn't--then medical researchers would have little hope in the fight against antibiotic resistant microbes.

Not only is the NCSE's mindset challenged by the evidence [4], but if it were true, the implications for medicine would be drastic: If biological realities like fitness cost and other limits to evolution did not exist, it would be pointless for medical doctors to try to combat antibiotic resistance or antiviral drug resistance, because evolution could always produce an adaptation such that bacteria would become resistant without incurring a fitness cost. Thankfully, Explore Evolution informs students about the realities of limits to bacterial evolution that give doctors and scientists empirically-based hope in the fight against antibiotic resistance.

The NCSE wrongly implies that fitness costs are a minor issue for those trying to fight antibiotic resistance and other forms of resistance, stating, "Mutations do not necessarily impair a protein's normal functioning nor impose a fitness cost." After complaining that "Explore Evolution ... says mutations do confer resistance but with a 'fitness cost,'" the NCSE then claims that "Explore Evolution significantly misrepresents how antibiotic resistance arises in this description." Unfortunately, it appears that the NCSE misunderstands both EE and the importance of fitness costs to evolutionary biologists.

Many scientific papers discuss the stark reality of fitness costs, supporting the emphasis that EE places on this topic. In fact, one paper cited by the NCSE acknowledges that the reality of fitness costs is vital to help scientists predict whether resistance will spread: "biological cost of resistance might be a more relevant predictor of the risk for resistance development." [5] Another paper published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry found that "[t]he topic of fitness costs is a central theme in evolutionary biology" because "fitness costs constrain the evolution of resistance to environmental stress." [6] Yet another paper observed that "[i]t is generally established that drug resistance mutations reduce viral fitness." [7] Regarding the specific case of antibiotic resistance, one study in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy observed that "[t]he biological fitness cost of antibiotic resistance is a key parameter in determining the rate of appearance and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria." [8] Indeed, science journals are replete with documented examples of fitness costs, as the following selections amply demonstrate:

An article published in the journal Genetics in 2007 by Marciano et al. titled "A Fitness Cost Associated With the Antibiotic Resistance Enzyme SME-1 β -Lactamase" found that blaSME-1 β-lactamase gene, which confers antibiotic resistance to the use of carbapenems, has a fitness cost associated with mutations in its signal sequence. Only by artificially swapping the gene's signal sequence with the signal sequence from a different gene could this fitness cost be alleviated; there was no natural evolutionary elimination of this fitness cost. The article found that identifying this fitness cost barrier to evolution helped them prevent the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria: "The identification of a SME-1-mediated fitness cost allows the direct application of genetic techniques that have been utilized to understand structural features of β-lactamase function and evolution." See David C. Marciano, Omid Y. Karkouti and Timothy Palzkill, "A Fitness Cost Associated With the Antibiotic Resistance Enzyme SME-1 β-Lactamase," Genetics, Vol. 176: 2381--2392 (August, 2007).
A paper in BiomedCentral's journal Evolutionary Biology titled "Acetylcholinesterase alterations reveal the fitness cost of mutations conferring insecticide resistance" found that some insects exposed to insecticides which target acetylcholinesterase, an important enzyme involved in the nervous system of insects, evolve resistance that comes only at a fitness cost. According to the article, "Our findings suggest that the alteration of activity and stability of acetylcholinesterase are at the origin of the fitness cost associated with mutations providing resistance." As the paper put it, "higher the number of [resistance-conferring] mutations, the lower the stability of the mutant" enzyme. When seeking mutations that compensated for loss of stability in the mutant enzymes, the study found that "no mutation increased the stability of the enzyme, all combinations resulted in proteins still less stable." In other words, there was a clear fitness cost faced by insecticide-resistant mutant insects. See David C. Marciano, Omid Y. Karkouti and Timothy Palzkill, "A Fitness Cost Associated With the Antibiotic Resistance Enzyme SME-1 β-Lactamase," Genetics, Vol. 176: 2381--2392 (August, 2007).
A paper in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, titled "Nitrofurantoin resistance mechanism and fitness cost in Escherichia coli," observes the reality of fitness cost, stating: "The biological fitness cost of antibiotic resistance is a key parameter in determining the rate of appearance and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria." The paper found that because of the fitness cost associated with E. coli that are resistant to Nitrofurantoin, "even though resistant mutants will appear in the bacterial population in the bladder, they will be unable to become enriched and establish an infection because of their impaired growth at these therapeutic antibiotic concentrations." The article further observes, "Resistance to antibiotics is most often accompanied by a biological cost, observed as a decrease in fitness, i.e. a reduced growth rate or virulence." Ironically, the paper cited by this study to bolster this claim--a claim that corroborates EE's statements about fitness cost--is Andersson (2006) [see below], the same paper that the NCSE cites to back its claim that "not all mutations produce fitness costs!" It seems that research scientists have interpreted Andersson (2006) differently than the NCSE. See Linus Sandegren, Anton Lindqvist, Gunnar Kahlmeter, and Dan I. Andersson, "Nitrofurantoin resistance mechanism and fitness cost in Escherichia coli," Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Vol. 62, 495--503 (2008).
Andersson (2006) explicitly observes that fitness cost is important to understanding whether resistant populations will persist after selection is relaxed:
A key parameter influencing the rate and trajectory of the evolution of antibiotic resistance is the fitness cost of resistance. Recent studies have demonstrated that antibiotic resistance, whether caused by target alteration or by other mechanisms, generally confers a reduction in fitness expressed as reduced growth, virulence or transmission. These findings imply that resistance might be reversible, provided antibiotic use is reduced. However, several processes act to stabilize resistance, including compensatory evolution where the fitness cost is ameliorated by additional mutation without loss of resistance, the rare occurrence of cost-free resistance mechanisms and genetic linkage or co-selection between the resistance markers and other selected markers. Conceivably we can use this knowledge to rationally choose and design targets and drugs where the costs of resistance are the highest, and where the likelihood of compensation is the lowest.
Thus, Andersson (2006) observes that "cost-free resistance mechanisms" are "rare" and that fitness cost is a very common phenomenon, stating that antibiotic resistance "generally confers a reduction in fitness." EE thus properly discusses this common phenomenon, and Andersson (2006) actually bolsters the points of EE. We find it unfortunate that the NCSE has misused this paper in its attempt to downplay the importance and reality of fitness costs. Additionally, Andersson (2006) states, "A rational antibiotic design strategy is therefore to identify targets for which the resistance mechanism has the most negative effect on fitness." This is a good strategy, but it would be pointless if bacteria didn't face evolutionary limits and could essentially always evolve to avoid fitness costs, as the NCSE implies. Again, we see that fitness cost is a real phenomenon and is vitally important to understand as microbiologists seek to slow the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. EE is justified in discussing it. See Dan I Andersson, "The biological cost of mutational antibiotic resistance: any practical conclusions?," Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 9:461--465 (2006).

Many similar examples could be cited. Given the scientific literature, how can the NCSE seriously maintain that fitness cost is not an important issue in microbiology or that EE is mistaken by highlighting its importance to evolutionary processes? The NCSE asserts that EE "significantly misrepresents how antibiotic resistance arises" when EE states that "[e]xperiments show that once antibiotics are removed from the environment, the original (non-resistant) strain 'out-competes' the resistant strain, which dies off within a few generations." But studies like those discussed here directly corroborate this claim of EE. And the existence of fitness costs are vital to helping biologists to fight antibiotic resistance, antiviral resistance, and pesticide resistance. For the sake of medical progress, thank goodness the NCSE is wrong.

[Note: This post was adapted from Antibiotic Resistance Revisited, a response to the NCSE, which was originally co-authored with Explore Evolution co-author Ralph Seelke, Professor of Biology at University of Wisconsin-Superior.]

References Cited
[1] National Center for Science Education. 2008. Section on "Bacteria" in the NCSE critique of Explore Evolution. Available at http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/bacteria as of January 16, 2009.

[4] See R. Seelke and S. Ebnet. "An unexpectedly low evolutionary potential for a trpA 49V,D60N double mutant In Escherichia coli.," Presented at the 107th Annual Meeting, Abstract R-055, American Society for Microbiology, Toronto, Canada, May 21-25, 2007; R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (Plenum Press, New York, 1984). Note: This book contains seven examples of situations in which evolution fails to produce a new function.

[5] Dan I Andersson, "The biological cost of mutational antibiotic resistance: any practical conclusions?," Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 9:461--465 (2006).

[6] Lingtian Xie and Paul L. Klerks, "Fitness costs constrain the evolution of resistance to environmental stress in populations," Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 23(6):1499--1503 (2004).

[7] M. Cong, D.E. Bennett, W, Heneine and J.G. García-Lerma, "Fitness Cost of Drug Resistance Mutations is Relative and is Modulated by Other Resistance Mutations: Implications for Persistance of Transmitted Resistance," Antiviral Therapy, Vol. 10, Suppl 1:S169 (June 7-11, 2005).


[8] Linus Sandegren, Anton Lindqvist, Gunnar Kahlmeter, and Dan I. Andersson, "Nitrofurantoin resistance mechanism and fitness cost in Escherichia coli," Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Vol. 62, 495--503 (2008).

A fossil link goes belly up.

Ida's Critics Demolish Claims That Fossil Is Human Evolutionary Link
Casey Luskin

Remember Ida? The fossil hailed as the "eighth wonder of the world" whose "impact on the world of palaeontology" would be like "an asteroid falling down to Earth"? She was promised to be "the link that connects us directly with the rest of the animal kingdom." She was touted on a History Channel / BBC documentary, but then there was the bust. Well, Ida's critics have now gotten around to publishing technical articles critiquing the hyped view promoted to the public last year. A recent news release at the University of Texas, "Recently Analyzed Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor As Claimed, Anthropologists Say," explains:
A fossil that was celebrated last year as a possible "missing link" between humans and early primates is actually a forebearer of modern-day lemurs and lorises, according to two papers by scientists at The University of Texas at Austin, Duke University and the University of Chicago.
In an article now available online in the Journal of Human Evolution, four scientists present evidence that the 47-million-year-old Darwinius masillae is not a haplorhine primate like humans, apes and monkeys, as the 2009 research claimed.

They also note that the article on Darwinius published last year in the journal PLoS ONE ignores two decades of published research showing that similar fossils are actually strepsirrhines, the primate group that includes lemurs and lorises.

"Many lines of evidence indicate that Darwinius has nothing at all to do with human evolution," says Chris Kirk, associate professor of anthropology at The University of Texas at Austin. "Every year, scientists describe new fossils that contribute to our understanding of primate evolution. What's amazing about Darwinius is, despite the fact that it's nearly complete, it tells us very little that we didn't already know from fossils of closely related species."

The big question now is, will BBC and The History Channel publish documentaries retracting their prior claims about Ida's importance as a "human ancestor," or will they leave the public with the impression that Ida is a "missing link"? Perhaps they might publish a documentary about the scientific community's tendency to overhype fossils as part of a crusade for Darwin? I'm a huge fan of The History Channel (or at least I used to be when they focused on real history instead of broadcasting UFO / "2012" material), but I'm not holding my breath.

A lack of evidence proves Darwinism?

Smithsonian's New Human Origins Exhibit Targets Students Who Doubt Darwinism
Casey Luskin

The Smithsonian has a new human origins exhibit, "What does it mean to be human?" specially targeted at swaying student visitors who might doubt Darwinian evolution.

The most amusing part of the exhibit proudly explains that evolution predicted we'd lack evidence for evolution; that's how we know it's true!

That's right, this is how the nation's most prestigious natural history museum presents evolution: evolution predicts that evolution is supported both when we do and when we don't find confirming fossil evidence. Consider the following from the educator's guide:

Misconception: Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.
Response: Science actually predicts gaps in the fossil record. Many species leave no fossils at all, and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not common. The chance of any individual organism becoming fossilized is incredibly small. Nevertheless, new fossils are constantly being discovered. These include many transitional fossils--e.g., intermediary fossils between birds and dinosaurs, and between humans and our primate ancestors. Our lack of knowledge about certain parts of the fossil record does not disprove evolution.

Did you get that? Ignoring the fact that transitional fossils are often missing even among taxa whose records are very complete, now Darwin's defenders argue that their theory "predicts gaps in the fossil record." How convenient!

(Now I fully understand the evolutionary explanation as to why transitional fossils are purportedly missing, and I've written on it extensively in the past, so if you want a critique, go there.)

What's ironic, however, is that if you ask the question How Do We Know Humans Evolved? the answer you're given is, "Fossils like the ones shown in our Human Fossils Gallery provide evidence that modern humans evolved from earlier humans." So whether you find fossils or you don't, that's evidence for evolution.

And some of the "transitional" fossils listed in the gallery are quite dubious.

Ardipithecus ramidus is offered as an alleged "a human-African ape common ancestor," yet the exhibit doesn't disclose that when "Ardi" was first discovered it was reportedly "crushed to smithereens" such that it resembled "Irish stew."

The exhibit also touts Sahelanthropus tchadensis as the "oldest fossil human," even though this species is known from only one skull and a few jaw fragments, which some paleoanthropologists have suggested might have belonged to a female gorilla.

But the exhibit gives no evidence of dissent from the official party line, such as an admission from Ernst Mayr in 2004 that "[t]he earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap," and therefore we're in a position of "[n]ot having any fossils that can serve as missing links."

I guess according to the Smithsonian's exhibit, this large, unbridged gap is just more evidence for evolution.

Darwinism's just so stories are almost as substantive as kipling's

Brangelina Fever Gets Its Own Darwinian Just-So Story
Jonathan Witt

Darwinists love just-so stories. Why are cheetahs fast? Because natural selection preferred the slightly faster cheetah ancestors, thanks to the fast cats being able to catch more prey and impress the lady cats. Why are turtles slow? Well, maybe being fast was a waste of energy, so turtle evolution at some point wandered down an evolutionary alley committed to a defensive strategy that, et cetera, et cetera.

Why are chimps clever? Because being clever gave their ancestors a survival advantage over their stupider cousins. Got a dimwitted species? No problem for Darwinism. Those animals didn't need cleverness in their ecological niche. Bigger brains would just have been a waste of calories.

The Maestro of Magic -- Natural Selection -- and His Sexy Assistant

Any attribute that makes a creature faster, smarter, stronger, stealthier, sturdier, more efficient -- there's a Darwinian just-so story waiting in the wings involving an animal hero, usually some poor duffer getting squeezed out in the competition for food or safety or conjugal warmth, and often as not, some damsel in either heat or distress who needs a hero almost as much as Bonnie Tyler does.

What about all those zany things on the nature shows so impractical that natural selection would never vote them on to the next round of mother nature's great big unmerciful game of Jeopardy? Well then, Darwinism has just the little beauty you're looking for. That's right, folks, sexual selection -- natural selection's winsome, whimsical, and wondrous assistant. Sexual selection is where, say, peahens prefer the peacocks with the bigger tail feathers, never mind how impractical those tails might become for running and flying. Presto! Peacocks have evolved whimsically enormous peacock tails.

Together, natural and sexual selection can whip up a just-so story for any biological marvel you want to throw at them.

The Monkey Business Behind Brangelina Fever

But wait. There's more. Enter movie star couple Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

Angela Chen of The Verge tackles the vexing question of why so many of us give a rip about the Hollywood soap opera that is Brangelina. A big part of her answer, of course: evolution. You see, "our brains adapted long ago to be deeply interested in the beautiful and famous among us, says Daniel Kruger, a psychologist at the University of Michigan."

Chen then summarizes a Duke University study where they showed four monkeys a series of pictures of other monkeys they knew:

Each time they looked at a picture, they received a certain amount of cherry juice. They got more juice for looking at pictures of lower-status monkeys and less juice for pictures of the alpha monkeys. The monkeys loved the juice, and yet were willing to sacrifice it for a glimpse at the alphas. They were transfixed by their power.
Why? "In prehistoric times, our ancestors lived in societies of around 200 people and it was important to know what everyone was up to," Chen explains. "You had to know who you could trust, who was strong, and who could teach you how to be like them. All this could help you get ahead."

We keep tabs on the rich and famous, Chen continues, "because they might reveal the secrets to success. On some level, our brains really do believe that stars are just like us and that lessons from millionaires can improve our own sad lives."

Evolutionary psychologist Frank McAndrew seconds all this. "People who didn't care what people were up to just didn't do very well. We're the descendants of the ones who gossiped, so we're programmed to pay attention to people who are socially important."

What about that brilliant mathematician or inventor or artist too busy discovering, inventing, or creating things to bother with gossip or the latest Brangelina dustup? He's descended from, what -- the dummies at the edge of the camp playing Dungeons & Dragons?

Darwinism is Like a Party Balloon -- Highly Flexible, and Mostly Empty

The Wall Street Journal story on the monkey experiment quotes Paul Glimcher, associate professor of neural science and psychology at New York University:

"All primates living in complex societies have evolved this drive to study what's around them," Dr. Glimcher explained. "People are willing to pay money to look at pictures of high-ranking human primates. When you fork out $3" for a celebrity gossip magazine, "you're doing exactly what the monkeys are doing."
Ain't evolution grand! Probably explains our love of bananas, too. What about the banana haters in our midst, you say? They, of course, are descended from a now extinct subspecies of banana-hating monkeys.

I kid, I kid. The point is that Darwinian just-so stories are so flexible they're able to explain almost any zoological phenomenon and its opposite.

The other problem: Except in some cases of microevolutionary adaptation, these Darwinian just-so stories explain things hardly any better than a Rudyard Kipling tale about how the leopard got his spots or the camel his hump. All of the truly creative action in these Darwinian stories -- that is, the long train of genetic mutations necessary to gradually build the oh-so-helpful pair of wings or the way-cool set of gills or claws or fingers -- generally takes place off stage, out of the spotlight and far away from the paparazzi.


That's bad show business, and bad science.