Hardline Darwinists' historical revisionism re:Junk DNA continues apace.

Post-ENCODE Posturing: Rewriting History Won't Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions
Casey Luskin 


Editor's note: This is Part 4 of a series on ENCODE that Casey Luskin has been publishing this year in Salvo Magazine. Parts 1, 2, and 3 have already been published there. The prelude can be found here.

Even in the face of the ENCODE consortium's compelling experimental results, many evolutionists still adamantly maintain that the vast majority of the human genome is junk. Some Darwin-defenders have tried hedging their bets by embracing ENCODE's research. This group seeks to revise history by claiming that evolutionary biology expected all along to find what ENCODE found: mass functionality in our genome.

Others are more forthright. They concede that evolutionary biology was mistaken about junk DNA, and they admit that new models are needed to accommodate ENCODE's data. In other words, they accept ENCODE's conclusions, but admit they can't explain them in evolutionary terms.

In this series, after introducing ENCODE, I have addressed various objections from evolutionists who reject the ENCODE results. In this and two subsequent articles, I will assess two more responses from evolutionists -- those who accept ENCODE, but now struggle to comprehend a junkless human genome in the post-ENCODE world.

Junky Predictions

Before going on, it's important to document what evolutionists were saying prior to 2012 when ENCODE's breakthrough papers showed that the vast majority of our genome is functional.

In an April 1980 issue, Nature published papers by influential biologists arguing that evolution predicts our genomes should be full of junk DNA. The first article, "Selfish Genes, the Phenotype Paradigm and Genome Evolution," by W. Ford Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza, maintained that "Natural selection operating within genomes will inevitably result in the appearance of DNAs with no phenotypic expression whose only 'function' is survival within genomes."1

A second paper, "Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite," was by Francis Crick, who won the Nobel Prize for determining the structure of DNA, and the eminent origin-of-life theorist Leslie Orgel. They concluded, "Much DNA in higher organisms is little better than junk," and "it would be folly in such cases to hunt obsessively for" its function.2

Fifteen years later, the junk-DNA paradigm was alive and well, as Scientific American reported:

These regions have traditionally been regarded as useless accumulations of material from millions of years of evolution ... In humans, about 97 percent of the genome is junk.3
I could give numerous other examples, but will allow just one more to suffice. In 2007, Columbia University philosopher of science Philip Kitcher published his Oxford University Press book Living with Darwin. Citing the mass of "genomic junk" that "litters the genome," Kitcher announced, "The most striking feature of the genomic analyses we now have is how much apparently nonfunctional DNA there is."4 In his view, "From the Darwinian perspective all this is explicable," but "if you were designing the genomes of organisms, you would certainly not fill them up with junk."5
Just Kidding -- We Anticipated Function!

When ENCODE's findings were published, many evolutionists reacted harshly to the conclusion that virtually our entire genome is functional. Others, however, realized that it would be sage advice to switch their bets, or simply place news ones alongside the old.

For example, a 2014 paper in Biology & Philosophy initially claimed that "junk DNA seems at odds with the view that the genome is ... the work of an intelligent force or designer," but then argued that a junk-free genome "is compatible with evolution by natural selection," because "we could expect natural selection to evolve lean genomes."6 According to this posturing, whether our genome is full of junk or devoid of it, evolution wins.

But first prize for betting on both horses goes to Richard Dawkins. In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins famously argued that "a large fraction"7 of our genomes is useless parasitic DNA, and that Darwinian evolution explains why:

The true "purpose" of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.8
Again in 2004 he railed against "creationists" on the basis of our junk-laden genomes:
[C]reationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.9
As recently as 2009, Dawkins adopted the incredible position that "the greater part (95 per cent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes."10
In September 2012, however, Dawkins changed his tune dramatically. Just one week after ENCODE's results were published, in a debate against Britain's chief rabbi, Dawkins declared that ENCODE's results are precisely what Darwinism predicts:

There are some creationists who are jumping on [ENCODE] because they think it's awkward for Darwinism. Quite the contrary, of course, it is exactly what a Darwinist would hope for -- to find usefulness in the living world.11
He went on to say, "[W]e thought that only a minority of the genome was doing something, namely that minority which actually codes for protein. And now we find that actually the majority of it is doing something." Under Dawkins's newly reformed view, "the rest [of the genome] which had previously been written off as junk" is now understood as "the program" that's "calling into action the protein coding genes."12
It's as if Dawkins's decades of arguing that our genome is full of junk never happened.

History Is Not Easily Rewritten

While some evolutionists try to erase their history of failed predictions, others seek to mitigate their embarrassment by highlighting the occasional suggestion, mined out of the annals of scientific literature, that some rare bits of the junk might end up being functional. For example, University of Guelph evolutionary biologist T. Ryan Gregory is an ENCODE-critic,13 but he has dug up a nice little collection of quotes from evolutionary scientists who purportedly predicted our finding some function for non-coding DNA.14 Presumably he did this just in case ENCODE turned out to be right.

Many of Gregory's quotes don't really support his case. They simply show biologists finding experimental evidence of function for noncoding "junk" -- just like ENCODE did -- not predicting it before the fact on the basis of a scientific model (as intelligent design proponents did). To be sure, many of the biologists who made these discoveries are evolutionists, but they made their discoveries by spending time in the lab studying how the cell works, not on the basis of evolutionary theory.

Gregory, however, makes a stronger argument, as he co-wrote in a scientific paper:

[I]t is simply not true that potential functions for noncoding DNA were ignored until recently. In fact, various early commenters considered the notion that large swaths of the genome were nonfunctional to be "repugnant", and possible functions were discussed each time a new type of nonprotein-coding sequence was identified...15
The quote about "repugnant" non-functionality comes from a paper that revealed much of our genome is repetitive DNA16 -- long cited as "junk."17 It's true that those particular authors didn't think the repetitive DNA was "trivial," but their paper was published in 1968, before the term "junk" DNA was even coined.18 Indeed, soon thereafter, this paper on repetitive DNA was being cited by another paper in Science that has proven foundational for evolutionary biology in establishing the pro-junk viewpoint. That latter paper (published in 1969) offered the astounding suggestion that "99 percent of mammalian DNA is not true genetic material"19 -- i.e., it is junk. In 1972, Susumu Ohno, the Japanese evolutionary biologist who coined the term "junk DNA," made a similarly striking prediction: "At least 90% of the mammalian genomic DNA appears to represent 'nonsense' DNA base sequence of various kinds."20
Thus, while it's true that some scientists have proposed various functions for noncoding DNA, evolutionary theorists by and large predicted that the vast majority of the genome would turn out to be functionless. The typical attitude is canonized in various editions of Douglas Futuyma's evolutionary biology textbooks, published from the 1970s into the 2000s. His first edition, written just a few years after the concept of junk DNA was conceived, anticipated that repetitive DNA would have no function:

[O]ther features may well be neutral, having no function whatever. The most extreme, still hypothetical, example is that of the highly repetitive short sequences of DNA that may never be transcribed into RNA. These may have a function ... but I would not be surprised if they did not.21
Futuyma's second edition, published in 1986, likewise claimed our genome is full of transposable, repetitive DNA sequences which "do not exist because they serve the organism" but rather are "ignorant DNA" or "selfish DNA ... and may be viewed as parasites."22 The third edition, published in 1998, again stated that these repetitive elements generally "do not provide any adaptive service to the organism" because they are "selfish DNA" or "parasites, much like viruses, of the genome in which they reside."23 Futuyma's still heavily promoted this viewpoint in his 2005 textbook, where he wrote:
Because natural selection consists only of differential reproductive success, it results in 'selfish genes' and genotypes, some of which have results that are inexplicable by intelligent design. We have seen that genomes are brimming with sequences such as transposable elements that increase their own numbers without benefitting the organism.24
As late as 2009, Futuyma's textbooks still claimed "In eukaryotes, the vast majority of DNA has no known function, even though as much as 80 percent may be transcribed."25 While Futuyma often includes caveats allowing that some small portion of this DNA might turn out to be functional, his view is typical of the evolutionary community: it's mostly junk.
Biologist Richard Sternberg offers a forceful reply to Gregory's style of argument:

As someone who has studied the concept of "junk DNA" for over twenty years, I am dismayed by ... a half-truth and a false fact that ... goes something like this: "No one ever asserted that junk DNA is without function ... it was long suspected that these sequences have important roles in the cells."26
Sternberg acknowledges that a few evolutionary scientists speculated that some junk might accidentally acquire a useful function. Even Crick and Orgel suggested that "occasionally" this might happen, but they still predicted "most sets of repeated sequences will never be of use."27 Their view -- common among evolutionary theorists -- stands in stark contrast to ENCODE's findings. Sternberg explains:
[T]he view expounded by Orgel and Crick ..., and Doolittle and Sapienza ... has been considered by many cellular and molecular biologists to be the correct explanation for much of genomic DNA until very recently. So the oft-read claim on the web that the term "junk DNA" never implied developmentally "non-functional DNA" is one that is made either out of ignorance or disingenuousness.28
Indeed, it's difficult to accept Gregory's claims that evolutionary biologists by-and-large anticipated function for non-coding DNA when he himself is a prime example of an evolutionary scientist who ardently advocates the view that our genome is overwhelmingly junky. In a March 2015 article in the New York Times, "Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?," science journalist Carl Zimmer praised Gregory's research and noted that he "champions an idea first developed in the 1970s but still startling today: that the size of an animal's or plant's genome has essentially no relationship to its complexity, because a vast majority of its DNA is -- to put it bluntly -- junk." According to Zimmer, "Where some look at all those billions of bases and see a finely tuned machine, others, like Gregory, see a disorganized, glorious mess."
Zimmer goes on to explain that Gregory not only thinks that there's much junk DNA in our cells, but also lots of junk RNA:

But to Gregory and others, [the view that most noncoding RNA is crucial] is a blinkered optimism worthy of Dr. Pangloss. They, by contrast, are deeply pessimistic about where this research will lead. Most of the RNA molecules that our cells make will probably not turn out to perform the sort of essential functions that hotair and firre do. Instead, they are nothing more than what happens when RNA-making proteins bump into junk DNA from time to time.
Zimmer concludes by saying Gregory believes the prevalence of junk DNA is strong evidence for evolution:
The blood-drenched slides that pack Gregory's lab with their giant genomes only make sense, he argues, if we give up thinking about life as always evolving to perfection. To him, junk DNA isn't a sign of evolution's failure. It is, instead, evidence of its slow and slovenly triumph.29
Zimmer quotes other evolutionary biologists asserting that most of our genome is junk, which is no surprise since his own evolutionary biology textbook, co-written with biologist Douglas Emlen, promotes the standard view that our genome is full of junk:
Over half of the genome is composed of neither genes, nor vestiges of human genes, nor regulatory regions. Instead, it is made up of parasite-like segments of DNA, known as mobile genetic elements, with the capacity to make new copies of themselves that can then be reinserted into the genome. Some mobile genetic elements originated as viruses that integrated their genes into the genome of their host. The origins of other mobile genetic elements are more mysterious. Once they become established in their host genome, mobile genetic elements can proliferate into thousands of copies and take up large amounts of space.30
However, what I've shown above only scratches the surface of a huge body of literature. Again and again, evolutionary biologists have predicted that our genome is primarily useless junk. Occasional caveats from evolutionary scientists, allowing that some small amount of the "junk" might be functional, do not mitigate the widespread, longstanding view that our cells are full of junk DNA. We now know that, on this point, evolutionists were wrong. The "junk DNA" paradigm has conclusively faltered.
We now return to the central question raised my first post: Is the vast majority of the human genome useless junk, or is the vast majority of the human genome crucial for cellular function?

In answering this question, it's important to clarify what the different camps are, or are not, saying. ID proponents and ENCODE defenders, who take the latter view, aren't saying the genome must have zero junk. And ENCODE's evolutionary critics, who take the former view, aren't saying that all non-coding DNA must be junk. Nonetheless, there's a titanic difference between the two viewpoints. In fact, if evolutionary scientists hadn't long-predicted that our genomes would be mostly functionless junk, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

References:

[1.] W.F. Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza, "Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution," Nature, 284:601-603 (April 17, 1980).

[2.] Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick, "Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite," Nature, 284:604-706 (April 17, 1980).

[3.] Philip Yam, "Talking Trash," Scientific American, 272:24 (March, 1995).

[4.] Philip Kitcher, Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith (Oxford University Press, 2007), 129, 62, 58.

[5.] Philip Kitcher, Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith (Oxford University Press, 2007), 58, 57.

[6.] Germain et al., "Junk or functional DNA? ENCODE and the function Controversy," Biology & Philosophy, 29:807-831 (November, 2014).

[7.] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1976), 44-45.

[8.] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1976), 44-45.

[9.] Richard Dawkins, A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (Mariner Books, 2004), 99.

[10.] Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (Free Press, 2009), 333.

[11.] Richard Dawkins, "Jonathan Sacks and Richard Dawkins at BBC RE:Think festival 12 September 2012": 12:57-13:11.

[12.] Richard Dawkins, "Jonathan Sacks and Richard Dawkins at BBC RE:Think festival 12 September 2012": 13:18-14:10.

[13.] Alexander Palazzo and T. Ryan Gregory, "The Case for Junk DNA," PLOS Genetics, 10(5):e1004351 (May 2014).

[14.] See T. Ryan Gregory, "Junk DNA -- the quotes of interest series," Evolver Zone Genomicron (February 18, 2008).

[15.] Alexander Palazzo and T. Ryan Gregory, "The Case for Junk DNA," PLOS Genetics, 10(5):e1004351 (May 2014).

[16.] R.J. Britten and D.E. Kohne, "Repeated Sequences in DNA," Science, 161:529-549 (August 9, 1968).

[17.] See Wojciech Makalowski, "Not Junk After All," Science, 300:1246-1247 (May 23, 2003).

[18.] Susumu Ohno, "So Much 'Junk' DNA in our Genome," Evolution of genetic systems, Brookhaven symposia in biology, no. 23 (New York: Gordon and Breach, 1972).

[19.] Jack Lester King and Thomas Jukes, "Non-Darwinian Evolution," Science, 164:788-798 (May 16, 1969).

[20.] Susumu Ohno, "An argument for the genetic simplicity of man and other mammals," Journal of Human Evolution, 1(6):651-662 (1972).

[21.] Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1979), 434 (emphasis added).

[22.] Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2nd ed., 1986), 457.

[23.] Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer Associates, Inc., 3rd ed., 1998), 640.

[24.] Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2005), 531.

[25.] Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2nd ed., 2009), 189-190.

[26.] Richard Sternberg, "How The Junk DNA Hypothesis Has Changed Since 1980," Evolution News & Views (October 8, 2009).

[27.] Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick, "Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite," Nature, 284:604-706 (April 17, 1980).

[28.] Richard Sternberg, "How The Junk DNA Hypothesis Has Changed Since 1980," Evolution News & Views (October 8, 2009).

[29.] Carl Zimmer, "Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?" The New York Times (March 5, 2015).

[30.] Carl Zimmer and Douglas Emlen, Evolution: Making Sense of Life, p. 132 (Roberts and Company Publishers, 2012).

In conclusion:our theory is sound,just don't go looking for any evidence of it.

Darwin, the Fossil Record, and Invisible Gorillas
November 21, 2015 Posted by Barry Arrington 

Astoundingly, some of our Darwinist friends continue to insist that Darwin had no problem with the fossil record, that he thought it was in complete agreement with this theory.  This is nuts.  He spent major portions of his book explaining why we should accept his theory even though the fossil record does not support it.  Here is a summary of what Darwin said:

1. My theory predicts that natural selection is working everywhere all the time to effect tiny morphological changes that accumulate over time and result in new species appearing.

2. The result is an extremely gradual process in which new species arise from prior species over eons of time though slow practically imperceptible changes.

3. If that is what happened, there must have existed infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species. IOW “just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous.”

4. My theory predicts that “infinitely many fine gradations” (i.e., a “truly enormous” number of intermediate varieties) existed. IOW, the record of life is one of rampant gradual morphological change affecting the vast majority of species the vast majority of the time. Obviously, if my theory is correct the GENERAL record of life cannot possibly be characterized by sudden appearance and stasis. Yes, stasis can sometimes happen with respect to an individual species, but stasis is not the rule. Indeed, my entire project is aimed at undermining the creationist notion of the fixity of species. How could I do that if I were to say that stasis is the rule among life forms generally?

5. The fossil record most assuredly does not reveal “infinitely many fine gradations” (i.e., a “truly enormous” number of intermediate varieties) as the rule.

6. Instead, if we had nothing but the fossil record to go on, we would have to believe that sudden appearance and stasis, not constant gradual morphological change,  is the rule.

7. Thus, the fossil record would seem to falsify my theory, because it does not reveal what my theory predicts it should reveal.

8. And that is a serious problem for me.  Indeed, it is the “most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against” my theory.

9. The answer lies not in my theory but in the fossil record. My theory is perfect; the history of life is exactly as I said it was, full of an infinite number of transitions. The fossil record is imperfect, because it fails to capture that.

10. Here is why I believe the fossil record is imperfect: blah, blah, blah.

11. If I am wrong about why the fossil record is imperfect, my theory comes falling down around me.

In response to all of this the Darwinists keep coming up with some version of “Darwin knew about stasis; he wrote about it and said it occurs.”  Of course Darwin knew about stasis, and yes he did write about it and say that it sometimes occurs.  Those facts change nothing.  Darwin wrote about stasis not to suggest that stasis is the rule, but in his effort to explain why the fossil record is — his words — “extremely imperfect.”

Look, if Darwin believed that the fossil record revealed what his theory predicted it would reveal, would he have called it “extremely imperfect”?  Of course not.  The whole point of Darwin’s lengthy discussion of the fossil record is to show that it did NOT reveal what actually happened, and that is why it is “extremely imperfect.”

He wrote:

But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Then he attempted to show why the record is extremely imperfect.  Then — and here is the key to the whole thing — he wagered his entire theory on whether he had successfully explained away the “extremely imperfect” fossil record that does not support his theory.  He wrote:

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation.

When Darwin was talking about stasis he was most assuredly not saying that he believed stasis is the general rule of the history of life.  How could he have?  That would have undermined his entire project.  Instead, he was trying to make lemonade out of lemons, and he himself said if the lemonade did not turn out his whole theory would crumble.

None of what I’ve said is the least bit controversial.  That the fossil record was an embarrassment to Darwin is no secret.  It has been the standard narrative for 157 years.  What is truly astounding is that we have Darwinists today who are somehow trying to claim that Darwin believed the fossil record offered perfect support to his theory even though he himself called that record “extremely imperfect” for the very reason that it did not.  Revisionism of this magnitude beggars belief.

On cracking the code of the Rosetta Stone.

 

Darwinists continue to repackage and tout failure as success.

The 12 Days of Evolution mangles the evolution of the eye
December 23, 2015 Posted by vjtorley under Intelligent Design


In the fourth video in the “Twelve days of evolution” series produced by PBS and “It’s okay to be smart,” Joe Hanson, Ph.D. (Biology) tells a whopper about the evolution of the eye. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before:

Computer simulations have replayed the process in just 350,000 generations, showing simple light patches can evolve into camera-like eyes in tiny, adaptive steps, 1,829 to be precise. Nature took a little longer than that, but genes, biochemistry, fossils, and anatomy all tell the same story. Eyes are pretty easy to evolve. So easy that nature has done it independently 50 to 100 times. That kind of complexity, rather than overthrowing Darwin’s theory, is proof of its power.

Back in 2013, I debunked these claims in my post, Could the eye have evolved by natural selection in a geological blink?.

Briefly:

(i) the model of eye evolution referred to in the video, which was developed in 1994 by Dr. Dan-Eric Nilsson and Dr. Susanne Pelger of Lund University in Sweden, was not a computer simulation, as Dr. David Berlinski has previously pointed out;

(ii) I contacted Professor Nilsson back in 2013, and asked him about the 1994 paper he co-authored with Susanne Pelger, and he admitted that the model which he and Pelger had developed was actually an intelligently guided evolutionary sequence, and that the variations in the model, while gradualistic, were not random;

(iii) the figure of 350,000 generations (actually 363,992 generations, to be precise) was a “nice round number,” which appears to have been deliberately chosen in order to provide Darwin’s theory with some good publicity. Had Nilsson and Pelger been less conservative in their “pessimistic estimate,” their calculations would actually have shown that the eye could have evolved in just 3,650 years, which is roughly equivalent to the time that has elapsed since the death of Pharaoh Tutankhamun. But of course, nobody – not even the man in the street – would believe a fantastic claim like that;

(iv) Nilsson and Pelger explicitly acknowledge in the final paragraph of their paper that their 364,000-year estimate was never meant to be a realistic one, and applies to a hypothetical situation in which “selection for eye geometry and optical structures imposed the only limit”;

(v) Nilsson and Pelger’s estimate isn’t anatomically realistic: it leaves out the brain. Most lens eyes would be useless to their bearers without advanced neural processing;

(vi) Nilsson and Pelger readily admit in their paper that their 364,000-year estimate deliberately confines its attention to one organism, and ignores changes occurring in other species, and in the organism’s environment;

(vii) Nilsson and Pelger’s estimate isn’t computationally realistic: it assumes a very smooth fitness landscape, as Dov Rhodes demonstrated in a 2007 physics thesis which addressed their 1994 paper;

(viii) Nilsson and Pelger’s estimate isn’t genetically plausible: it says nothing about the genetic changes required to produce an eye;

(ix) Nilsson and Pelger’s estimate isn’t plausible at the embryological level.The authors fail to address the question of how the changes required to produce an eye would have impacted the embryonic development of organisms that were evolving this eye. Organisms’ developmental pathways are extremely fragile, especially in the early stages;

(x) Nilsson and Pelger’s model isn’t plausible at the biochemical level: it fails to address the biochemical changes that must have occurred in the eye, during its evolution from a light-sensitive spot to a vertebrate eye, citing only a brief reference to the literature on the subject. In fact, the various proteins that were involved in the evolution of the eye are not readily inter-convertible. It is by no means a foregone conclusion that the alpha crystallins present in the crystalline lens of the vertebrate eye could ever have naturally evolved into beta-gamma crystallins, which belong to an entirely different family. Likewise, it is doubtful whether the three families of crystallins (J1, J2, and J3) found in the eyes of cubozoan jellyfish could have developed from a common molecule without intelligent guidance.

Summing up my findings, I wrote:

I conclude, then, that the 364,000-year estimate proposed by Nilsson and Pelger for the evolution of the eye is not a biologically realistic one: it applies only to a “toy” world where one structure can simply transform itself by imperceptible degrees into another. But without this estimate, the whole foundation for the Darwinian claim that the evolution of the vertebrate eye from a light-sensitive spot is a plausible occurrence collapses. All we are left with is theoretical possibility. And that, as we have seen, isn’t enough to make Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection a proper scientific theory.

Professor Jerry Coyne has some further critical comments in his post on the “12 Days of Evolution” video:

The video’s claim that eyes have evolved independently 50-100 times is dubious. It depends on what you mean by “eyes,” for eyes from insects to humans have co-opted on the same controlling gene (Pax6), so at least that bit isn’t independent. If you mean “the structure of the eye”, then yes, those structures have evolved independently several times, but I don’t think it’s 50-100.

Tardigrades decided to quit while they're a head?

Are Tardigrades "a Head" of Arthropods?:
Evolution News & Views January 24, 2016 2:54 AM

"Water bears" (phylum Tardigrada) are fascinating little creatures. Only about half a millimeter long, they look like aliens when magnified (see this BBC photo). They act like them, too; they are some of the toughest animals on Earth or in outer space. According to Wikipedia:

Tardigrades are notable for being perhaps the most durable of known organisms; they are able to survive extreme conditions that would be rapidly fatal to nearly all other known life forms. They can withstand temperature ranges from 1 K (−458 °F; −272 °C) to about 420 K (300 °F; 150 °C),[7] pressures about six times greater than those found in the deepest ocean trenches, ionizing radiation at doses hundreds of times higher than the lethal dose for a human, and the vacuum of outer space. They can go without food or water for more than 10 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water, only to rehydrate, forage, and reproduce.

Consequently, they thrive everywhere. "They have been sighted from mountaintops to the deep sea, from tropical rain forests to the Antarctic" although they prefer lichens and mosses. They are found in hot springs and under layers of ice. By any measure, they are extremely successful colonizers of our planet, even though the name "tardigrade" means "slow walker." About 1,150 species have been described. See how they move in a short video from NPR's Science Friday and in beautiful color video clips at National Geographic, showing smooth, coordinated motion of their eight legs. Ecologically, they play a role as herbivores, consuming plant material and bacteria. You might be able to find some in your back yard with a magnifying glass.

Where do they come from? Fossils of tardigrades have been found in middle Cambrian strata from Siberia, 530 million years old. Stephen Meyer lists the phylum as a participant in the Cambrian explosion (Darwin's Doubt, p. 32). They may be related to the Burgess Shale animal Opabinia (animated in the film Darwin's Dilemma). Because they have body segments with legs, tardigrades are lumped with arthropods and onycophorans in a super-phylum called Panarthropoda, but there has been dispute about those relationships. Tardigrades seem like unique animals disconnected from others.

Now researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have a new origin story: tardigrades are degenerate arthropods. Their paper in Current Biology announces, "The Compact Body Plan of Tardigrades Evolved by the Loss of a Large Body Region," including the thorax and most of the abdomen. What remains is mostly an arthropod-like head with eight little legs.

The superphylum Panarthropoda (Arthropoda, Onychophora, and Tardigrada) exhibits a remarkable diversity of segment morphologies, enabling these animals to occupy diverse ecological niches. The molecular identities of these segments are specified by Hox genes and other axis patterning genes during development. Comparisons of molecular segment identities between arthropod and onychophoran species have yielded important insights into the origins and diversification of their body plans. However, the relationship of the segments of tardigrades to those of arthropods and onychophorans has remained enigmatic, limiting our understanding of early panarthropod body plan diversification. Here, we reveal molecular identities for all of the segments of a tardigrade. Based on our analysis, we conclude that tardigrades have lost a large intermediate region of the body axis--a region corresponding to the entire thorax and most of the abdomen of insects--and that they have lost the Hox genes that originally specified this region. Our data suggest that nearly the entire tardigrade body axis is homologous to just the head region of arthropods. Based on our results, we reconstruct a last common ancestor of Panarthropoda that had a relatively elongate body plan like most arthropods and onychophorans, rather than a compact, tardigrade-like body plan. These results demonstrate that the body plan of an animal phylum can originate by the loss of a large part of the body.

That's one way to get a head in life, but is it evolution? Darwin's tree wouldn't get very far by chopping off parts of animal body plans below the neck. They are suggesting that the original panarthropod had an elongate body, from which arthropods and onycophorans descended. Tardigrades are truncated remnants with just the head region. This is evolution in reverse!

If the authors had a more pro-Darwinian conclusion, they surely would have offered one, because their opening sentence sympathizes with Darwin's doubt:

Understanding the origin of animal body plans has been a longstanding issue in evolutionary biology, ever since Darwin struggled to reconcile his theory with the early fossil record of animals.

Yet they only offer a theory of evolution by reduction:

Our model of segment homologies suggests that the tardigrade body axis is reduced, relative to other panarthropods, comprising mostly anterior identity, in line with an earlier hypothesis based on nervous system anatomy. How did this evolve?.... The expression pattern of the posterior marker Hd-Abd-B1 suggests that posterior identity is retained in the posterior of the tardigrade body axis, which indicates that simple truncation is not the answer. Expression of the posterior marker caudal (cad) in a posterior region of the fourth leg-bearing segment (Figures 3H and 3I) confirms the retention of posterior identity.

What they are left with is removal of intermediate segments, leaving a head attached to a few posterior segments with legs. Did this come about through loss of Hox genes? No, they believe, "because Hox genes typically specify segment identities rather than regulate segment production." Instead, the Hox genes "might become dispensable when the segments they once specified are lost, leading to loss of such Hox genes through neutral processes." But panarthropods develop by adding segments onto the end. How does evolution chop out the middle of an animal? Things get complicated in their speculation:

We speculate that reduction, and ultimately loss, of terminal addition accounts for the loss of intermediate segments in the tardigrade lineage. In this view, most of the tardigrade body axis represents the short germband of other panarthropods, i.e., the few anterior segments that appear simultaneously during development before terminal segment addition commences. This model would require that the posterior region of the short germband be respecified as the posterior of the body axis, since segments with posterior-most identity are normally the last segments to emerge through terminal addition, and posterior identity is retained in tardigrades. Diversity in segment number in other panarthropods emerges in the body region that is produced through terminal addition. We speculate that the loss of terminal addition in the tardigrade lineage explains the invariant segment number of this phylum.

Basically, the first tardigrade was a head, and the back end of the head grew legs. It's a wild idea. We'll have to see if other evolutionists can swallow it. It seems odd that this would happen in the Cambrian and persist 530 million years till now. Wikipedia noted a tardigrade found in Cretaceous amber with parts that look identical to living ones. That's stasis, not evolution.

What researchers should be focusing on is the amazing design of these tiny animals. They have stubby legs with claws. They have a mouth and eyes. They lay eggs. They molt periodically. They have a digestive tract and sexual organs. They have muscles and nerves. That's a lot of specialized tissue to pack into half a millimeter! And to think that these are among the most durable animals on Earth, able to survive in habitats beyond all necessity for a Cambrian marine organism, including outer space -- that should challenge all notions of unguided evolution. Organisms should only adapt to their immediate circumstances, not to distant unknown habitats they might encounter some future day, or never.

Tardigrades are hard-core survivalists. The BBC News photo caption says, "Boil them, deep-freeze them, crush them, dry them out or blast them into space: tardigrades will survive it all and come back for more." The article struggles with Darwinian explanations for these superpowers.

How do these seemingly insignificant creatures survive in such extreme conditions, and why have they evolved these superpowers?....

They are truly ancient. Fossils of tardigrades have been dated to the Cambrian period over 500 million years ago, when the first complex animals were evolving. And ever since they were discovered, it has been clear that they are special....

Yet despite their rather tedious lifestyle, they have evolved to cope with environments so extreme, they don't even exist on Earth....


Evolutionists are stumped trying to answer such questions. The new theory of evolution by subtraction is likely to leave them falling further and further behind in explaining the wonders of life. Tardigrades give evidence of design perfection in miniature, and should be celebrated as such.

Yet more on abiogenesis.

On baptism:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

BAPTISM

The Greek baʹpti·sma refers to the process of immersion, including submersion and emergence; it is derived from the verb baʹpto, meaning “dip.” (Joh 13:26) In the Bible, “to baptize” is the same as “to immerse.” In illustration of this, The Holy Bible, An Improved Edition, renders Romans 6:3, 4 as follows: “Or, are ye ignorant, that all we who were baptized (immersed) into Christ Jesus were baptized (immersed) into his death? We were buried therefore with him through our baptism (immersion) into his death.” (See also Ro; ED.) The Greek Septuagint uses a form of the same word for “dip” at Exodus 12:22 and Leviticus 4:6. (See NW ftns.) When one is immersed in water, one is temporarily “buried” out of sight and then lifted out.

We shall consider four different aspects of baptism, together with related questions: (1) John’s baptism, (2) water baptism of Jesus and his followers, (3) baptism into Christ Jesus and into his death, (4) baptism with fire.

John’s Baptism. The first human authorized by God to perform water baptism was John the son of Zechariah and Elizabeth. (Lu 1:5-7, 57) The very fact that he was known as “John the Baptist” or “the baptizer” (Mt 3:1; Mr 1:4) implies that baptism or water immersion came to the attention of the people especially through John, and the Scriptures prove that his ministry and baptism came from God; they were not of John’s origin. His works were foretold by the angel Gabriel as from God (Lu 1:13-17), and Zechariah prophesied by holy spirit that John would be a prophet of the Most High to make Jehovah’s ways ready. (Lu 1:68-79) Jesus confirmed that John’s ministry and baptism were from God. (Lu 7:26-28) The disciple Luke records that “God’s declaration came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. So he came . . . preaching baptism.” (Lu 3:2, 3) The apostle John states of him: “There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God: his name was John.”—Joh 1:6.

Further understanding of the meaning of John’s baptism is gained by comparing various translations of Luke 3:3. John came “preaching baptism in symbol of repentance for forgiveness of sins” (NW); “baptism conditioned on repentance” (CB); “baptism whereby men repented, to have their sins forgiven” (Kx); “baptism in token of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (NE); “Turn away from your sins and be baptized, and God will forgive your sins” (TEV). These renderings make plain that the baptism did not wash away their sins, but the repentance and changing of their ways did, and of this, baptism was a symbol.

The baptism performed by John was therefore not a special cleansing from God through his servant John, but a public demonstration and symbol of the individual’s repentance over his sins against the Law, which was to lead them to Christ. (Ga 3:24) John thereby prepared a people to “see the saving means of God.” (Lu 3:6) His work served to “get ready for Jehovah a prepared people.” (Lu 1:16, 17) Such a work had been prophesied by Isaiah and Malachi.—Isa 40:3-5; Mal 4:5, 6.

Some scholars try to read anticipation of John’s baptism and the Christian baptism in ancient purification ceremonies under the Law (Ex 29:4; Le 8:6; 14:8, 31, 32; Heb 9:10, ftn) or in individual acts. (Ge 35:2; Ex 19:10) But these instances bear no analogy to the real meaning of baptism. They were washings for ceremonial cleanness. In only one instance is there anything approaching a dipping of the body completely under water. This is in the case of Naaman the leper, and the plunging into water was done seven times. (2Ki 5:14) It did not bring him into any special relationship with God, but it merely cured him of leprosy. Besides, Scripturally, proselytes were circumcised, not baptized. To partake of the Passover or engage in worship at the sanctuary one had to be circumcised.—Ex 12:43-49.

Neither are there any grounds for the assertion made by some that John’s baptism was probably borrowed from the Jewish sect the Essenes or from the Pharisees. Both of these sects had many requirements for ablutions to be performed often. But Jesus showed such to be mere commandments of men who overstepped the commandments of God by their tradition. (Mr 7:1-9; Lu 11:38-42) John baptized in water because, as he said, he was sent by God to baptize in water. (Joh 1:33) He was not sent by the Essenes or by the Pharisees. His commission was not to make Jewish proselytes but to baptize those who were already members of the Jewish congregation.—Lu 1:16.

John knew that his works were merely a preparing of the way before God’s Son and Messiah and would give way to the greater ministry of that One. The reason for John’s baptizing was that the Messiah might be made manifest to Israel. (Joh 1:31) According to John 3:26-30, the Messiah’s ministry would increase, but John’s ministry was to decrease. Those who were baptized by Jesus’ disciples during Jesus’ earthly ministry and who therefore also became Jesus’ disciples were baptized in symbol of repentance in the manner of John’s baptism.—Joh 3:25, 26; 4:1, 2.

Jesus’ Baptism in Water. The baptism of Jesus himself as performed by John must of necessity have had a meaning and purpose quite different from John’s baptism, as Jesus “committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.” (1Pe 2:22) So he could not submit to an act symbolizing repentance. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that John objected to baptizing Jesus. But Jesus said: “Let it be, this time, for in that way it is suitable for us to carry out all that is righteous.”—Mt 3:13-15.

Luke states that Jesus was praying at the time of his baptism. (Lu 3:21) Further, the writer of the letter to the Hebrews says that when Jesus Christ came “into the world” (that is, not when he was born and could not read and say these words, but when he presented himself for baptism and began his ministry) he was saying, in accord with Psalm 40:6-8 (LXX): “Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you prepared a body for me. . . . Look! I am come (in the roll of the book it is written about me) to do your will, O God.” (Heb 10:5-9) Jesus was by birth a member of the Jewish nation, which nation was in a national covenant with God, namely, the Law covenant. (Ex 19:5-8; Ga 4:4) Jesus, by reason of this fact, was therefore already in a covenant relationship with Jehovah God when he thus presented himself to John for baptism. Jesus was there doing something more than what was required of him under the Law. He was presenting himself to his Father Jehovah to do his Father’s “will” with reference to the offering of his own “prepared” body and with regard to doing away with animal sacrifices that were offered according to the Law. The apostle Paul comments: “By the said ‘will’ we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.” (Heb 10:10) The Father’s will for Jesus also involved activity in connection with the Kingdom, and for this service too Jesus presented himself. (Lu 4:43; 17:20, 21) Jehovah accepted and acknowledged this presentation of his Son, anointing him with holy spirit and saying: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.”—Mr 1:9-11; Lu 3:21-23; Mt 3:13-17.

Water Baptism of Jesus’ Followers. John’s baptism was due to be replaced by the baptism commanded by Jesus: “Make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” (Mt 28:19) This was the only water baptism having God’s approval from Pentecost, 33 C.E., forward. Some years after 33 C.E., Apollos, a zealous man, was teaching correctly about Jesus, but he had an understanding of only John’s baptism. On this matter he had to be corrected, as did the disciples whom Paul met at Ephesus. These men in Ephesus had undergone John’s baptism, but evidently after its valid performance had ended, since Paul’s visit to Ephesus was about 20 years after the termination of the Law covenant. They were then baptized correctly in the name of Jesus and received holy spirit.—Ac 18:24-26; 19:1-7.

That Christian baptism required an understanding of God’s Word and an intelligent decision to present oneself to do the revealed will of God was evident when, at Pentecost, 33 C.E., the Jews and proselytes there assembled, who already had a knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, heard Peter speak about Jesus the Messiah, with the result that 3,000 “embraced his word heartily” and “were baptized.” (Ac 2:41; 3:19–4:4; 10:34-38) Those in Samaria first believed Philip’s preaching of the good news, and then they were baptized. (Ac 8:12) The Ethiopian eunuch, a devout Jewish proselyte who, as such, also had knowledge of Jehovah and the Hebrew Scriptures, heard first the explanation of the fulfillment of these scriptures in Christ, accepted it, and then wanted to be baptized. (Ac 8:34-36) Peter explained to Cornelius that “the man that fears [God] and works righteousness is acceptable” (Ac 10:35) and that everyone putting faith in Jesus Christ gets forgiveness of sins through his name. (Ac 10:43; 11:18) All of this is in harmony with Jesus’ command to “make disciples . . . teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” Those who accept the teaching and who become disciples properly get baptized.—Mt 28:19, 20; Ac 1:8.

At Pentecost, Jews who bore community responsibility for Jesus’ death, and who doubtless knew of John’s baptism, were “stabbed to the heart” by Peter’s preaching and asked: “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter answered: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” (Ac 2:37, 38) Notice that Peter pointed out something new to them—that, not repentance and baptism in John’s baptism, but repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was necessary for forgiveness of sins. He did not say that baptism itself washed away sins. Peter knew that “the blood of Jesus [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1Jo 1:7) Later, after speaking of Jesus as “the Chief Agent of life,” Peter said to Jews at the temple: “Repent, therefore, and turn around so as to get your sins blotted out, that seasons of refreshing may come from the person of Jehovah.” (Ac 3:15, 19) Here he instructed them that repenting of their bad deed against Christ and ‘turning around,’ to recognize him, was what brought forgiveness of sin; he did not at this point mention baptism.

As for the Jews, the Law covenant was abolished on the basis of Christ’s death on the torture stake (Col 2:14), and the new covenant became operative at Pentecost, 33 C.E. (Compare Ac 2:4; Heb 2:3, 4.) Nevertheless, God extended special favor to the Jews about three and a half years longer. During this time Jesus’ disciples confined their preaching to Jews, Jewish proselytes, and Samaritans. But about 36 C.E. God directed Peter to go to the home of the Gentile Cornelius, a Roman army officer, and by pouring out His holy spirit on Cornelius and his household, showed Peter that Gentiles could now be accepted for water baptism. (Ac 10:34, 35, 44-48) Since God no longer recognized the Law covenant with the circumcised Jews but now recognized only his new covenant mediated by Jesus Christ, natural Jews, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, were not considered by God as being in any special relationship with him. They could not attain to a status with God by observing the Law, which was no longer valid, nor by John’s baptism, which had to do with the Law, but were obliged to approach God through faith in his Son and be baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ in order to have Jehovah’s recognition and favor.—See SEVENTY WEEKS (Covenant in force “for one week”).

Consequently, after 36 C.E., all, Jews and Gentiles, have had the same standing in God’s eyes. (Ro 11:30-32; 14:12) The people of the Gentile nations, except for those who had been circumcised Jewish proselytes, were not in the Law covenant and had never been a people having a special relationship with God the Father. Now the opportunity was extended to them as individuals to become God’s people. Before they could be baptized in water they, therefore, had to come to God as believers in his Son Jesus Christ. Then, according to Christ’s example and command, they would properly submit to water baptism.—Mt 3:13-15; 28:18-20.

Such Christian baptism would have a vital effect on their standing before God. After referring to Noah’s constructing of the ark in which he and his family were preserved through the Flood, the apostle Peter wrote: “That which corresponds to this is also now saving you, namely, baptism, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the request made to God for a good conscience,) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1Pe 3:20, 21) The ark was tangible evidence that Noah had dedicated himself to do God’s will and had then faithfully done the work assigned by God. This led to his preservation. In a corresponding way, those who would dedicate themselves to Jehovah on the basis of faith in the resurrected Christ, get baptized in symbol of that, and do God’s will for his servants would be saved from the present wicked world. (Ga 1:3, 4) No longer would they be headed for destruction with the rest of the world. They would be saved from this and would be granted a good conscience by God.

No Infant Baptism. In view of the fact that ‘hearing the word,’ ‘embracing the word heartily,’ and ‘repenting’ precede water baptism (Ac 2:14, 22, 38, 41) and that baptism requires the individual to make a solemn decision, it is apparent that one must at least be of age to hear, to believe, and to make this decision. An argument is made by some in favor of infant baptism. They refer to the instances where ‘households’ were baptized, such as the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, and Stephanas. (Ac 10:48; 11:14; 16:15, 32-34; 18:8; 1Co 1:16) They believe that this implies that small babies in those families were also baptized. But, in the case of Cornelius, those who were baptized were those who had heard the word and received the holy spirit, and they spoke in tongues and glorified God; these things could not apply to infants. (Ac 10:44-46) Lydia was “a worshiper of God, . . . and Jehovah opened her heart wide to pay attention to the things being spoken by Paul.” (Ac 16:14) The Philippian jailer had to “believe on the Lord Jesus,” and this implies that the others in his family also had to believe in order to be baptized. (Ac 16:31-34) “Crispus the presiding officer of the synagogue became a believer in the Lord, and so did all his household.” (Ac 18:8) All of this demonstrates that associated with baptism were such things as hearing, believing, and glorifying God, things infants cannot do. At Samaria when they heard and believed “the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, they proceeded to be baptized.” Here the Scriptural record specifies that the ones baptized were, not infants, but “men and women.”—Ac 8:12.

The statement made by the apostle Paul to the Corinthians that children were “holy” by reason of a believing parent is no proof that infants were baptized; rather, it implies the opposite. Minor children too young to have the ability to make such a decision would come under a form of merit because of the believing parent, not because of any so-called sacramental baptism, imparting independent merit. If infants could properly be baptized, they would not need to have the merit of the believing parent extended to them.—1Co 7:14.

It is true that Jesus said: “Stop hindering [the young children] from coming to me, for the kingdom of the heavens belongs to suchlike ones.” (Mt 19:13-15; Mr 10:13-16) But they were not baptized. Jesus blessed them, and there is nothing to indicate that his laying his hands upon them was a religious ceremony. He further showed that the reason ‘the kingdom of God belongs to such’ was not because they were baptized but because they were teachable and trusting. Christians are commanded to be “babes as to badness,” yet “full-grown in powers of understanding.”—Mt 18:4; Lu 18:16, 17; 1Co 14:20.

The religious historian Augustus Neander wrote of the first-century Christians: “The practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period. . . . That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenaeus [c. 120/140-c. 200/203 C.E.], a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin.”—History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles, 1864, p. 162.

Complete Immersion. From the definition of baptism as stated earlier, it is clear that baptism is complete immersion or submersion in water, not a mere pouring or sprinkling. The Bible examples of baptism corroborate this fact. Jesus was baptized in a sizable river, the Jordan, and after being baptized he came “up out of the water.” (Mr 1:10; Mt 3:13, 16) John selected a location in the Jordan Valley near Salim to baptize, “because there was a great quantity of water there.” (Joh 3:23) The Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized when they came to “a body of water.” They both “went down into the water.” Afterward they came “up out of the water.” (Ac 8:36-40) All these instances imply, not a small ankle-deep pool, but a large body of water into and out of which they would have to walk. Further, the fact that baptism was also used to symbolize a burial indicates complete submersion.—Ro 6:4-6; Col 2:12.

Historical sources show that the early Christians baptized by immersion. On this subject the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. II, p. 56) states: “It is evident that Baptism in the early Church was by immersion.” Larousse du XXe Siècle, Paris, 1928, says: “The first Christians received baptism by immersion everywhere where water was found.”

Baptism Into Christ Jesus, Into His Death. Jesus knew at the time of his baptism in the Jordan River that he was entering upon a sacrificial course. He knew that his ‘prepared body’ must be put to death, that he must die in innocence as a perfect human sacrifice with ransoming value for mankind. (Mt 20:28) Jesus understood that he must be plunged into death but that he would be raised out of it on the third day. (Mt 16:21) So he likened his experience to a baptism into death. (Lu 12:50) He explained to his disciples that he was already undergoing this baptism during his ministry. (Mr 10:38, 39) He was baptized fully into death when he was plunged into death by being impaled on the torture stake on Nisan 14, 33 C.E. His resurrection by his Father Jehovah God on the third day completed this baptism, which includes a raising up. Jesus’ baptism into death is clearly distinct and separate from his water baptism, for he had completely undergone water baptism at the beginning of his ministry, at which time his baptism into death only began.

The faithful apostles of Jesus Christ were baptized in water by John’s baptism. (Joh 1:35-37; 4:1) But they had not yet been baptized with holy spirit when Jesus pointed out that they were also to be baptized in a symbolic baptism like his, a baptism into death. (Mr 10:39) So baptism into his death is something apart from water baptism. Paul expressed himself in his letter to the Christian congregation at Rome, saying: “Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”—Ro 6:3.

It is Jehovah God who is responsible for the performing of such baptism into Christ Jesus as well as baptism into his death. He anointed Jesus, making him the Christ or Anointed One. (Ac 10:38) Thus God baptized Jesus with the holy spirit in order that, through Jesus, his followers might thereafter be baptized with holy spirit. Therefore, those who become joint heirs with him, with heavenly hopes, have to be “baptized into Christ Jesus,” that is, into the Anointed Jesus who, at the time of his anointing, was also begotten to be a spiritual son of God. They thereby become united to him, their Head, and they become members of the congregation that is the body of Christ.—1Co 12:12, 13, 27; Col 1:18.

The course of these Christian followers who are baptized into Christ Jesus is a course of integrity-keeping under test from the time they are baptized into Christ, a daily facing of death and finally a death of integrity, as described by the apostle Paul when he explained to the Roman Christians: “Therefore we were buried with him through our baptism into his death, in order that, just as Christ was raised up from the dead through the glory of the Father, we also should likewise walk in a newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall certainly also be united with him in the likeness of his resurrection.”—Ro 6:4, 5; 1Co 15:31-49.

Clarifying the matter still further, Paul, in writing to the congregation at Philippi, described his own course as “a sharing in [Christ’s] sufferings, submitting myself to a death like his, to see if I may by any means attain to the earlier resurrection from the dead.” (Php 3:10, 11) Only the Almighty God the heavenly Father, who is the Baptizer of those who are baptized in union with Jesus Christ and into his death, can complete the baptism. This He does through Christ by raising them up out of death to be united with Jesus Christ in the likeness of his resurrection, which is to heavenly, immortal life.—1Co 15:53, 54.

That a congregation of people can, so to speak, be baptized or immersed into a liberator and leader is illustrated by the apostle Paul when he describes the congregation of Israel as being “baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and of the sea.” There they were covered with a protecting cloud and with the walls of water on each side of them, being, symbolically speaking, immersed. Moses foretold that God would raise up a prophet like himself; Peter applied this prophecy to Jesus Christ.—1Co 10:1, 2; De 18:15-19; Ac 3:19-23.

What is baptism “for the purpose of being dead ones”?

The passage at 1 Corinthians 15:29 is variously rendered by translators: “What shall they do which are baptized for the dead?” (KJ); “on behalf of their dead?” (AT); “on behalf of the dead?” (NE); “for the purpose of being dead ones?” (NW)

Many different interpretations have been offered for this verse. The most common interpretation is that Paul was referring to the custom of vicarious baptism in water, that is, baptizing living persons in behalf of dead ones in a substitutionary way in order to benefit the dead. The existence of such a practice in Paul’s day cannot be proved, nor would it be in accord with those scriptures that clearly state that “disciples,” those who themselves ‘embraced the word heartily,’ those who personally “believed,” were the ones that got baptized.—Mt 28:19; Ac 2:41; 8:12.

A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, includes “for,” “on behalf of,” and “for the sake of” among its definitions of the Greek preposition hy·perʹ, which is used with the genitive case in 1 Corinthians 15:29. (Revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, p. 1857) In some settings the expression “for the sake of” is equivalent to “for the purpose of.” Already in 1728 Jacob Elsner noted cases from various Greek writers where hy·perʹ with the genitive has final meaning, that is, a meaning expressive of purpose, and he showed that in 1 Corinthians 15:29 this construction has such meaning. (Observationes Sacrae in Novi Foederis Libros, Utrecht, Vol. II, pp. 127-131) Consistent with this, in this verse the New World Translation renders hy·perʹ as meaning “for the purpose of.”

Where an expression can grammatically be translated in more than one way, the correct rendering is one that agrees with the context. In the context, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4 shows that what is principally under discussion is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The following verses then present evidence of the soundness of that belief (vss 5-11); they discuss the serious implications of denying belief in the resurrection (vss 12-19), the fact that the resurrection of Christ gives assurance that others will be raised from the dead (vss 20-23), and how all of this works toward the unification of all intelligent creation with God (vss 24-28). Verse 29 obviously is an integral part of this discussion. But whose resurrection is at issue in verse 29? Is it the resurrection of the ones whose baptism is referred to there? Or is it that of someone who died before that baptism took place? What do the following verses indicate? Verses 30 to 34 clearly show that the future life prospects of living Christians are there being discussed, and verses 35 to 58 state that those were faithful Christians who had the hope of heavenly life.

That agrees with Romans 6:3, which says: “Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” As this scripture makes plain, that is not a baptism that a Christian undergoes on behalf of someone already dead but is, instead, something that affects the person’s own future.

In what sense, then, were those Christians “baptized for the purpose of being dead ones,” or “baptized into his death”? They were immersed into a course of life that was to lead them as integrity-keepers to death, as was the case with Christ, and with the hope of a resurrection like his to immortal spirit life. (Ro 6:4, 5; Php 3:10, 11) This was not a baptism that was accomplished quickly, as water immersion is. More than three years after his immersion in water, Jesus spoke of a baptism that was not yet completed in his own case and that was yet future for his disciples. (Mr 10:35-40) Since this baptism leads to resurrection to heavenly life, it must begin with the operation of God’s spirit on the person in such a way as to engender that hope, and it must end, not at death, but with realization of the prospect of immortal spirit life by means of the resurrection.—2Co 1:21, 22; 1Co 6:14.

A Person’s Place in God’s Purpose. It should be noted that the one being baptized in water enters a special relationship as Jehovah’s servant, to do His will. The individual does not determine what the will of God is for him, but it is God who makes the decision as to the use of the individual and the placing of such one in the framework of His purposes. For example, in times past, the entire nation of Israel was in special relationship with God; they were Jehovah’s property. (Ex 19:5) But only the tribe of Levi was selected to perform the services at the sanctuary, and out of this tribe only Aaron’s family constituted the priesthood. (Nu 1:48-51; Ex 28:1; 40:13-15) The kingship came to be established exclusively in the line of David’s family by Jehovah God.—2Sa 7:15, 16.

Likewise those who undergo Christian baptism become God’s property, his slaves, to employ as he sees fit. (1Co 6:20) An example of God’s direction of such matters is found in Revelation, where reference is made to a definite number of persons finally “sealed,” namely, 144,000. (Re 7:4-8) Even before such final approval, God’s holy spirit serves as a seal that gives those sealed a token in advance of their inheritance, a heavenly one. (Eph 1:13, 14; 2Co 5:1-5) Those having such a hope are also told: “God has set the members in the body [of Christ], each one of them, just as he pleased.”—1Co 12:18, 27.

Jesus called attention to another group when he said: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.” (Joh 10:16) These are not of the “little flock” (Lu 12:32), but they too must approach Jehovah through Jesus Christ and be baptized in water.

The vision given to the apostle John, as recorded in Revelation, harmonizes with this when, after showing John the 144,000 “sealed” ones, it turns his eyes to “a great crowd, which no man was able to number.” These are shown as having “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb,” indicating faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ the Lamb of God. (Re 7:9, 14) They are therefore given favorable recognition, “standing before [God’s] throne,” but are not those whom God selects to be the “sealed” 144,000. As to this “great crowd,” the vision goes on to point out that they serve God day and night and will be protected and will be cared for by him.—Re 7:15-17.

Baptism With Fire. When many Pharisees and Sadducees came out to John the Baptizer, he called them “offspring of vipers.” He spoke of the coming One and said: “That one will baptize you people with holy spirit and with fire.” (Mt 3:7, 11; Lu 3:16) The baptism with fire is not the same as baptism with holy spirit. The fiery baptism could not be, as some say, the tongues of fire at Pentecost, for the disciples there were not immersed in fire. (Ac 2:3) John told his listeners that there would be a division, there would be a gathering of the wheat, after which the chaff would be burned up with fire that could not be put out. (Mt 3:12) He pointed out that the fire would not be a blessing or a reward but would be because ‘the tree did not produce fine fruit.’—Mt 3:10; Lu 3:9.


Using fire as a symbol of destruction, Jesus foretold the execution of the wicked to take place during his presence, saying: “On the day that Lot came out of Sodom it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all. The same way it will be on that day when the Son of man is to be revealed.” (Lu 17:29, 30; Mt 13:49, 50) Other instances of fire representing, not a saving force, but a destructive one, are found at 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Jude 7; and 2 Peter 3:7, 10.

Time for the west to call it a day re:Afghanistan?:Pros and cons.

God as Artist rather than tinkerer.