Two billion year old tech Vs. Darwinism

How Evolutionists Stole the Histones;
Cornelius Hunter

The recent finding that the DNA packaging technology and structure, known as chromatin, is not limited to eukaryotes but is also present in archaea, and so from an evolutionary perspective must have “evolved before archaea and eukaryotes split apart—more than 2 billion years ago,” is merely the latest in a string of misadventures evolutionists have incurred ever since they stole the histones.

Histones are the hub-like proteins which (usually) serve as the hubs about which DNA is wrapped in the chromatin structure. Like a thread wrapped around a spool this design packs DNA away for storage with an incredible packing factor. Interestingly, the histone proteins are highly similar across vastly different species. Again, from an evolutionary perspective, this means they must have evolved early in evolutionary history to a very specific design. As one textbook explains:

The amino acid sequences of four histones (H2A, H2B, H3, and H4) are remarkably similar among distantly related species. For example, the sequences of histone H3 from sea urchin tissue and of H3 from calf thymus are identical except for a single amino acid, and only four amino acids are different in H3 from the garden pea and that from calf thymus. … The similarity in sequence among histones from all eukaryotes indicates that they fold into very similar three-dimensional conformations, which were optimized for histone function early in evolution in a common ancestor of all modern eukaryotes. [1]

But the new finding pushes back this evolutionary “optimization” far earlier in time. Once again, evolution’s heroics are moved to the distant past where no one can see. Early life was not simple.

And of course DNA needs to be accessed so this histone packaging is quite dynamic. It can roll or it can be removed and moved. The histones themselves have tails that stick out and are tagged with small chemical groups that influence whether the packaging is tight or unrolled. Again, early life was not simple.

But the fact that histones are so similar across a wide range of species leads to an entirely different dilemma for evolution. For from an evolutionary perspective, it means that the histones must not tolerate change very well. Here is how a leading 1994 textbook described it:

When the number of amino acid differences in a particular protein is plotted for several pairs of species against the time since the species diverged, the result is a reasonably straight line. That is, the longer the period since divergence, the larger the number of differences. … When various proteins are compared, each shows a different but characteristic rate of evolution. Since all DNA base pairs are thought to be subject to roughly the same rate of random mutation, these different rates must reflect differences in the probability that an organism with a random mutation over the given protein will survive and propagate. Changes in amino acid sequence are evidently much more harmful for some proteins than for others. From Table 6-2 we can estimate that about 6 of every 7 random amino acid changes are harmful over the long term in hemoglobin, about 29 of every 30 amino acid changes are harmful in cytochrome c, and virtually all amino acid changes are harmful in histone H4. We assume that individuals who carried such harmful mutations have been eliminated from the population by natural selection. [2]

So the reason the histone proteins are so similar, again from an evolutionary perspective, is because mutations changing those proteins could not be tolerated. This is the evolutionary prediction and here is how the next edition of that same textbook, eight years later in the year 2002, added to the discussion of the high similarity of the histone proteins:

As might be expected from their fundamental role in DNA packaging, the histones are among the most highly conserved eucaryotic proteins. For example, the amino acid sequence of histone H4 from a pea and a cow differ at only at 2 of the 102 positions. This strong evolutionary conservation suggests that the functions of histones involve nearly all of their amino acids, so that a change in any position is deleterious to the cell. This suggestion has been tested directly in yeast cells, in which it is possible to mutate a given histone gene in vitro and introduce it into the yeast genome in place of the normal gene. As might be expected, most changes in histone sequences are lethal; the few that are not lethal cause changes in the normal pattern of gene expression, as well as other abnormalities.

There was only one problem. That is false. In fact, even at the time studies had already shown that histone H4 could well tolerate many changes. It was not merely an example of evolution pointing in the wrong direction and producing yet another failed prediction. It was an all too frequent example of evolution abusing science, force-fitting results into its framework. And of course all of this became doctrine for wider consumption. As a 2001 PBS documentary stated:

Histones interact with DNA in the chromosomes, providing structural support and regulating DNA activities such as replication and RNA synthesis. Their ability to bind to DNA depends upon a particular structure and shape. Virtually all mutations impair histone's function, so almost none get through the filter of natural selection. The 103 amino acids in this protein are identical for nearly all plants and animals.

But it is not, and was not, true that “virtually all mutations impair histone’s function.” That was not science, it was dogma disguised as science. And since then the dogma has become even more obvious. As one recent paper summarized:

Furthermore, recent systematic mutagenesis studies demonstrate that, despite the extremely well conserved nature of histone residues throughout different organisms, only a few mutations on the individual residues (including nonmodifiable sites) bring about prominent phenotypic defects.

Similarly another paper bemoaned the confusing results:

It is remarkable how many residues in these highly conserved proteins can be mutated and retain basic nucleosomal function. … The high level of sequence conservation of histone proteins across phyla suggests a fitness advantage of these particular amino acid sequences during evolution. Yet comprehensive analysis indicates that many histone mutations have no recognized phenotype.

In fact, even more surprising for evolutionists, many mutations actually raised the fitness level:

Surprisingly, a subset of 27 histone mutants show a higher intensity after growth (log2 ratio >+1.5) suggesting they are collectively fitter and maintain a selective advantage under glucose limitation.

It was yet another falsified evolutionary prediction, and yet another example of evolution abusing science.

Now evolutionists propose a redundancy hypothesis. Those histone mutations are well tolerated because evolution constructed a backup mechanism. Both mechanisms would have to mutate and fail before any lethal effects could be felt.

As usual, contradictory results are accommodated by patching the theory with yet more epicycles. The epicycles make the theory far more complex, and far more unlikely, if that were so possible. In this case, evolution not only struck on incredible complexity, and did so early in history (before there were eukaryotes and nucleus’s in which to pack the DNA), but the whole design now must have incorporated layers of redundancy which we haven’t even been able to figure out yet.

And all of this, evolutionists insist, must be a fact. Anyone who would so much as doubt this truth must be blackballed.

It has been one misstep after another ever since the evolutionists stole the histones. Evolution is truly a profound theory, not for what it reveals about nature, but for what it reveals about people. Religion drives science, and it matters.

1. H Lodish, A Berk, SL Zipursky, et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed. (New York: W. H. Freeman, 2000).

2. B Alberts, D Bray, J Lewis, M Raff, K Roberts, J Watson, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 3rd ed. (New York: Garland Science, 1994), 243.

3. B Alberts, A Johnson, J Lewis, et. al., Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th ed. (New York: Garland Science, 1994), 243.

Galapagos finches Vs. Darwin.

Darwin’s Finches Are Evidence for Evolution? Think Again:
By MICHAEL DENTON Published on February 11, 2016:


Today is Darwin Day, marking the birthday of Charles Darwin. As the world looks back on the achievements of the great man, you are likely to see many “icons of evolution” triumphantly displayed. These famous, yet often flawed, success stories of Darwinian theory are held up as reasons to believe that the neo-Darwinian synthesis and everything it entails — scientifically and philosophically — has vanquished all legitimate challenges. But that is not so.

One of the most famous such icons is a small group of birds, an inspiration for Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, that populates a remote cluster of islands in the equatorial Pacific. The Galápagos finches, with their different beak sizes, are brandished as one of the clearest examples of evolution at work.

However, that is true up to only a very limited extent. These birds are, indeed, a clear example of micro-evolution. They are closely related to each other and their beaks have obviously been adapted through natural selection to the different food sources on the various islands. However, the finches also show what is required in order to expand the mechanism of natural selection to the larger or macro scale.

The Galápagos finches put on display the two strict requirements that must be present in order for natural selection to work its magic. If these two factors are not present, natural selection is impotent to change any creature at all, much less create a new species.

First, the finches’ beaks are clearly adaptive. Each distinct variation gives the lucky individual a definitive leg-up in its specific environment. There is an obvious, practical reason why the differentiation is helpful to the species in question. This is absolutely essential in order for natural selection to pick between variations in species. Natural selection can only “see” those variations that are adaptive — causing one individual to live, and carry on its genes, and another to die and not leave offspring. If a variation is neutral or does not somehow increase fitness in the specific environment the creature lives in, Darwin’s mechanism cannot select it.

Second, there is a functional continuum among the finches’ beaks. That is, between a finch with a tiny beak and a finch with a large beak, there are tiny, step-by-step changes, and each change makes the creature slightly more fit in its environment. This is also essential for natural selection to work.

The problem for Darwinian theory comes in explaining evolutionary change where, unlike the case of Darwin’s finches, these requirements are absent. First, there may not be a continuum. That is, natural selection cannot make large jumps or drastic changes. There must be small steps. Secondly, each single step must be beneficial to the individual. It is not enough for the first and last versions of the adaptation to be helpful — all the intervening steps must increase fitness as well.

There are examples of creatures throughout the biological world that break one or both of these rules. Many creatures just don’t fit the natural selection story like the Galápagos finches do.

For example, what is the adaptive significance of the many examples of geometric or abstract forms we see in the world, such as the shapes of leaves or the concentric whorls of flowers? Or consider the case of the enucleated red blood cell in mammals, which was the subject of my postdoctoral work. Not only have we found no obvious reason that such features increase fitness, there is no plausible continuum leading from a blood cell that keeps its nucleus to one that ejects it.

There are no such intermediate forms in nature, and it is impossible to plausibly imagine intermediates that are even stable, much less adaptive. I document many more examples in my new book, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis.

Without workable explanations for these many anomalies, Darwinian evolution may just go the way of Newtonian physics — applicable to a small area where specific rules apply, but unable to make universal statements about the world in general.

So when you see the media promoting the Galápagos finches as evidence for Darwinian evolution this Darwin Day, take it with a grain of salt. Not every species in the world is as obliging to the requirements of Darwinism as the famous finches. And this is just the beginning of life’s richness and complexity that cannot be reduced to Darwinian biology.

On Darwinian attempts at explaining(away) human mathematical ability

Explaining Human Mathematical Ability — Three Evolutionary Hypotheses

 William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells

Editor’s note: Last week we launched the new online college-level curriculum   to go with a beloved ID classic, The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems, by mathematician William Dembski and biologist Jonathan Wells. The curriculum is free and available here.  The 300-page book is hardcover, featuring full-color illustrations and accompanied by a CD with additional materials. Get it on Amazon now. Listen to Jonathan Wells talk about this package of amazing resources on an ID the Future podcast. And enjoy the following excerpt by Dr. Dembski and Dr. Wells:

Humans have many unique cognitive abilities apart from language. Evolutionary theorists have proposed three main types of hypotheses for how these abilities might have evolved: the adaptationist hypothesis, the byproduct hypothesis, and the sexual selection hypothesis. Let’s consider these hypotheses in turn with respect to a specific cognitive ability, namely, mathematics.

The Adaptationist Hypothesis

How did humans acquire their talent for mathematics? According to the adaptationist hypothesis, mathematical ability conferred a selective advantage on our evolutionary ancestors. Those with better mathematical abilities were as a result better able to survive and reproduce. In other words, they were better able to “adapt” to their environments (hence the term “adaptationist hypothesis”). This hypothesis has a certain plausibility when it comes to the acquisition of rudimentary mathematical abilities like simple arithmetic.

For example, if one of our hunter-gatherer ancestors counted five lions earlier in the day but now sees four of them dead (killed by him and his fellow hunters), a knowledge of basic arithmetic will warn him that one lion is still on the loose. He will thus know to act cautiously, which will translate into a survival and reproductive advantage. But rudimentary mathematical abilities are one thing; developing four-dimensional Riemannian geometries that describe a curved spacetime manifold, as Albert Einstein did, is quite another. It is hardly plausible that abstract mathematics, such as the Einstein Field Equations, confers any immediate survival and reproductive advantage. Moreover, future survival and reproduction is ruled out because evolution does not “look ahead.” So the adaptationist hypothesis breaks down, and other hypotheses are required.

The Byproduct Hypothesis

According to the byproduct hypothesis, higher cognitive functions like mathematics are not evolutionary adaptations at all. Instead, they are unintended byproducts of traits that are adaptive. Spectacular mathematical abilities are thus said to piggyback on adaptive traits. Pascal Boyer offers such an argument. According to him, some rudimentary ability to count and add is adaptive, but the capacity to do higher-level mathematics is a byproduct of this rudimentary ability. The higher-level capacity is not adaptive by itself; rather, it emerges as a free rider on abilities that are adaptive. But how, exactly, does rudimentary quantitative ability turn into the ability to develop curved spacetime Riemannian geometries or mathematical theories of comparable sophistication? Boyer doesn’t say.1

This is always the weakness of byproduct hypotheses, namely, bridging the gap between what can be explained in standard evolutionary terms (adaptations) and the unexpected “freebies” (byproducts) that come along for the ride. Some free lunches are just too good to be true. And precisely when they are too good to be true, they require explanation. That’s especially true of mathematics: Here we have a human capacity that not only emerges, according to the byproduct hypothesis, from other capacities, but also provides fundamental insights into the structure of the physical universe (mathematics is, after all, the language of physics).2 How could a capacity like that arise as the byproduct of a blind evolutionary process, unguided by any intelligence? It is not a sufficient explanation here simply to say that it could have happened that way. Science does not trade in sheer possibilities. If our mathematical ability is the byproduct of other evolved traits, then the connection with those traits needs to be made explicit. To date, it has not been.

The Sexual Selection Hypothesis

Finally, we turn to the sexual-selection hypothesis. Sexual selection is Darwin’s explanation for how animals acquire traits that have no direct adaptive value. Consider a stag whose antlers are so large that they are more deadweight than defense. Or a peacock whose large colored tail makes it easy prey. How do such structures evolve? According to Darwin, they evolve because they help to attract mates—they are a form of sexual display. Thus, even though these features constitute a disadvantage for survival in the greater environment, the reproductive advantage they provide in attracting mates more than adequately compensates for this disadvantage and provides an evolutionary explanation for the formation of these features.

Geoffrey Miller has applied Darwin’s idea of sexual selection to explain the formation of our higher cognitive functions.3 According to him, extravagant cognitive abilities like those exhibited by mathematical geniuses are essentially a form of sexual display. Once a capacity begins to attract mates, it acts like a positive feedback loop, continually reinforcing itself. In the case of cognitive functions, such a positive feedback loop can run unchecked because there are no environmental constraints to impose limits: unlike stag antlers or peacock tails, which can only get so large before their adaptive disadvantage outweighs their ability to attract mates, higher cognitive functions can essentially increase without limits. This, for Miller, is the origin of our higher cognitive functions, and our talent for mathematics in particular.

The Fundamental Weakness of These Evolutionary Hypotheses

Leaving aside whether mathematical ability really is a form of sexual display (most mathematicians would be surprised to learn as much), there is a fundamental problem with these hypotheses. To be sure, they presuppose that the traits in question evolved, which in itself is problematic. The main problem, however, is that none of them provides a detailed, testable model for assessing its validity. If spectacular mathematical ability is adaptive, as the adaptationist hypothesis claims, how do we determine that? What precise evolutionary steps would be needed to achieve that ability? If it is a byproduct of other abilities, as the byproduct hypothesis claims, of which abilities exactly is it a byproduct and how do these other abilities facilitate it? If it is a form of sexual display, as the sexual selection hypothesis claims, how exactly did the ability become a criterion for mate selection?

In short, the main difficulty with all three hypotheses is that they attempt to account for an existing state of affairs without hard evidence of the factors that brought it about, only speculation. In the case of mathematics in particular, that is an especially severe deficit because higher mathematics is not obviously useful when it first emerges. The fact that uses are sometimes found later is, on conventional evolutionary grounds, irrelevant to its emergence. It becomes relevant only if one is justified in thinking that there is purpose in nature.

Intelligent Design?

Certainly, if evolution is true, then one of these hypotheses or some combination of them is likely to account for our ability to do mathematics. But even if evolution is true, in the absence of a detailed, testable model of how various higher-level cognitive functions emerged, these hypotheses are scientifically sterile. On the other hand, from an intelligent design perspective, mathematics is readily viewed as an inherent feature of intelligence and rationality. Moreover, the fact that the mathematical theorems we prove mirror the deep structure of physical reality suggests that intelligence is fundamental to nature and not merely an accidental or historical byproduct of blind material forces. The intelligence underlying nature as reflected in mathematics is a theme explored by Eugene Wigner, who referred to the “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics in elucidating nature.4

Number Sense in Animals

Many animals have a  basic ability to know the difference between more and less, or many and few. Rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees appear to pay more attention to a quantity if it has changed than if it hasn’t. According to M. D. Hauser, captive rhesus monkeys have been taught to understand ordinal relations from 1 to 9, but only after hundreds of training trials in conditions that are not duplicated in the wild.5 Essentially, after six months of training, some rhesus monkeys were accurate 50 percent of the time in identifying an ascending or descending order from 1 to 9.6 A weakness of this research is the high level of human interference, a point often overlooked in evolutionary literature (though not by Hauser). The monkeys develop this skill under intensive training by humans. It is unlikely that they would do so otherwise, because almost any non-destructive use of the average wild monkey’s time would be better and more immediately rewarded in nature. This fact tells against an adaptationist hypothesis in explaining even the most basic arithmetic skills, never mind abstract mathematical skills that typically only find a use after they have emerged apart from any survival goal.

Notes:

(1) Boyer makes this argument in Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought (New York: Basic Books, 2001). In attempting to account for higher cognitive functions, Boyer is concerned not just with mathematics but also with art, religion, and ethics. For another byproduct approach to higher cognitive functions, see Steven Mithen, The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion, and Science (London: Thames & Hudson, 1996). Mithen sees higher-level functions like mathematics as the byproducts of a “cognitive fluidity” that is adaptive in the sense that it facilitates the coordination and communication of various lower-level cognitive modules.

(2) See especially Mark Steiner, The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999).

(3) See his book The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature (New York: Doubleday, 2000).

(4) See Eugene P. Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” Communications in Applied Mathematics 13 (1960): 1. For a deeper exploration of this theme, see Steiner, The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem.

(5) M. D. Hauser, “What Do Animals Think about Numbers?” American Scientist 88 (2) (2000): 144–51.

(6) Beth Azar, “Monkeying Around with Numbers,” Monitor on Psychology: Science Watch 31(1) (January 2000): available online here (last accessed June 7, 2006).

Illiberal liberals?:Pros and Cons.

How is Christ prototokos.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exists." (Col. 1:15-17, The New World Translation).

cornerst writes: Please note that this passage does not say Jesus was the "first created," but that He was the "first-born." The Bible doesn't use the Greek word for "first created (protoktizo), but firstborn (prototokos) of all creation.

Response: It should be noted that protoktizo was not in common use back in the first century, and would not be for a 100 to 200 years after Christ. Interestingly though, when this word was eventually used, it was used of Christ. John Patrick, in his Clement of Alexandria notes:

"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word." p.103,104, note 6.
The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Volume 1 Faith, Trinity, Incarnation, by Harry Austryn Wolfson, 2nd Edition, Revised:
"Zahn casually remarks that Clement 'always makes a sharp distinction between the only uncreated God the Father and the Son or Logos who was begotten or created before the rest of creation.'...1. cf. Th. Zahn, "Supplementum Clementinium", (1884), 144, p. 204, 92 
"It is undoubtably with reference to this "coming forth" of the Logos prior to the creation of the world that Clement speaks of the Logos as "firstborn" [protogonos] and of wisdom, which he idtentified with the Logos, as the "first-created" [protoktistos]...30 Strom. VI, Ibid. V. 14., ibid. p 209
cornerst writes: The word "firstborn" refers to a position of pre-eminence rather than a time of birth. Rights and privileges were usually bestowed upon the child who was born first, but those rights did not always go to him. Manasseh was the first one born, but Jacob (Israel) blessed Ephraim instead of Manasseh and gave him the position of first-born (Gen. 48:13-22). In Jeremiah 31:9, God declares Ephraim to be His first-born, even though Manasseh was born first. 
The same is true with Jacob and Esau. Although Esau was the first one born, Jacob (whose name was change to Israel) received his brother's birthright and his father's blessing and became the first-born. The nation of Israel was named after him, and the Lord calls Israel His first-born (Ex. 4:22). Here again, first-born refers to rank and privilege. It means first in importance, not first in time. The nation of Israel was not the first-born of a woman and not even the first nation to exist. But God called it the first-born among all the nations. In the same way, Jesus is the first-born of all creation. 
The "first-born of the poor" (Isa. 14:30) means "the poorest of the poor." The "first-born of death" (Job 18:13) means Job's disease was the most terrible of diseases. The "first-born" of the kings means the highest of the kings of the earth (Ps. 89:27). David (v.20) was the last one born in his family, but was called the firstborn. The "first-born of the dead" (Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5) means that Jesus is pre-eminent over death.
Response: But how many of us know that the word PRWTOTOKOS is not used in Greek LXX in Job 18:13 and Isaiah 14:30? Let us look for examples where it is used mostly followed by the genitive like "of": 
Verses used are from the English Translation of The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, 1844, 1851.

          LXX Genesis 4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep 
          and of his fatlings, and God looked upon Abel and his gifts,

          LXX Genesis 25:13 And these are the names of the sons of Ismael, according 
          to the names of their generations. The firstborn of Ismael, Nabaioth, 
          and Kedar, and Nabdeel, and Massam,

          LXX Genesis 27:19 And Jacob said to his father, I, Esau thy 
          first-born, have done as thou toldest me; rise, sit, and eat of my 
          venison, that they soul may bless me.

          LXX Genesis 35:23 The sons of Lea, the first-born of Jacob; Ruben, 
          Symeon, Levi, Judas, Issachar, Zabulon.

          LXX Genesis 36:15 These are the chiefs of the son of Esau, even the sons of 
          Eliphas, the first-born of Esau; chief Thaeman, chief Omar, chief 
          Sophar, chief Kenez,

          LXX Genesis 38:6 And Judas took a wife for Er his first-born, whose 
          name was Thamar.

          LXX Genesis 38:7 And Er, the first-born of Judas, was wicked before 
          the Lord; and God killed him.

          LXX Genesis 46:8 And these are the names of the sons of Israel that went 
          into Egypt with their father Jacob-- Jacob and his sons. The first-born 
          of Jacob, Ruben.

          LXX Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength, and 
          the first of my children, hard to be endured, hard and self-willed.

          LXX Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say to Pharao, These things saith the Lord, 
          Israel is my first-born.

          LXX Exodus 6:14 And these are the heads of the houses of their families: the 
          sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; Enoch and Phallus, Asron, and 
          Charmi, this is the kindred of Ruben.

          LXX Exodus 11:5 And every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from 
          the first-born of Pharao that sits on the throne, even to the 
          first-born of the woman-servant that is by the mill, and to the 
          first-born of all cattle.

          LXX Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord smote all the 
          first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharao that 
          sat on the throne, to the first-born of the captive-maid in the 
          dungeon, and the first-born of all cattle.

          LXX Exodus 13:13 Every offspring opening the womb of the ass thou shalt 
          change for a sheep; and if thou wilt not change it, thou shalt redeem it: 
          every first-born of man of thy sons shalt thou redeem.

          LXX Exodus 13:15 And when Pharao hardened his heart so as not to send us 
          away, he slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both the first-born 
          of man and the first-born of beast; therefore do I sacrifice 
          every offspring that opens the womb, the males to the Lord, and every 
          first-born of my sons I will redeem.

          LXX Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not keep back the first-fruits of thy threshing 
          floor and press. The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me.

          LXX Exodus 34:19 The males are mine, everything that opens the womb; every 
          first-born of oxen, and every first-born of sheep.

          LXX Exodus 34:20 And the first-born of an ass thou shalt redeem with 
          a sheep, and if thou wilt not redeem it thou shalt pay a price: every 
          first-born of thy sons shalt thou redeem: thou shalt not appear 
          before me empty.

          LXX Numbers 1:20 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel 
          according to their kindreds, according to their divisions, according to the 
          houses of their families, according to the number of their names, according 
          to their heads, were-- all males from twenty years old and upward, every one 
          that went out with the host--

          LXX Numbers 3:40 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Count every 
          first-born male of the children of Israel from a month old and upwards, 
          and take the number by name.

          LXX Numbers 3:41 And thou shalt take the Levites for me-- I am the Lord-- 
          instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and the cattle 
          of the Levites instead of all the first-born among the cattle of the 
          children of Israel.

          LXX Numbers 3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the first-born of the 
          sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle, 
          and the Levites shall be mine; I am the Lord.

          LXX Numbers 3:46 And for the ransoms of the two hundred and seventy-three 
          which exceed the Levites in number of the first-born of the sons of 
          Israel;

          LXX Numbers 3:50 He took the silver from the first-born of the sons of 
          Israel, a thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, according to 
          the holy shekel.

          LXX Numbers 8:16 For these are given to me for a present out of the midst of 
          the children of Israel: I have taken them to myself instead of all the 
          first-born of the sons of Israel that open every womb.

          LXX Numbers 8:17 For every first-born among the children of Israel is 
          mine, whether of man or beast: in the day in which I smote every 
          first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified them to myself.

          LXX Numbers 18:15 And every thing that opens the womb of all flesh, 
          whatsoever they bring to the Lord, whether man or beast, shall be thine: 
          only the first-born of men shall be surely redeemed, and thou shalt 
          redeem the first-born of unclean cattle.

          LXX Numbers 18:17 But thou shalt not redeem the first-born of calves 
          and the first-born of sheep and the first-born of goats; 
          they are holy: and thou shalt pour their blood upon the altar, and thou 
          shalt offer the fat as a burnt-offering for a smell of sweet savour to the 
          Lord.

          LXX Numbers 26:5 Ruben was the first-born of Israel: and the sons of 
          ruben, Enoch, and the family of Enoch; to Phallu belongs the family of the 
          Phalluites.

          LXX Deuteronomy 12:6 And ye shall carry thither your whole-burnt-offerings, 
          and your sacrifices, and your first-fruits, and your vowed-offerings, and 
          your freewill-offerings, and your offerings of thanksgiving, the 
          first-born of your herds, and of your flocks.

          LXX Deuteronomy 12:17 Thou shalt not be able to eat in thy cities the tithe 
          of thy corn, and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thine 
          herd and of thy flock, and all your vows as many as ye shall have 
          vowed, and your thank-offerings, and the first-fruits of thine hands.

          LXX Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat it in the place which the Lord thy 
          God shall choose to have his name called there; ye shall bring the tithe of 
          thy corn and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thy herd 
          and of thy flock, that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God 
          always.

          LXX Deuteronomy 15:19 Every first-born that shall be born among thy kine and 
          thy sheep, thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord thy God; thou shalt not 
          work with thy first-born calf, and thou shalt not shear the first-born of 
          thy sheep.

          LXX Deuteronomy 33:17 His beauty is as the firstling of his bull, his 
          horns are the horns of a unicorn; with them he shall thrust the nations at 
          once, even from the end of the earth: these are the ten thousands of 
          Ephraim, and these are the thousands of Manasse.

          LXX Joshua 6:26 And Joshua adjured them on that day before the Lord, saying, 
          Cursed be the man who shall build that city: he shall lay the foundation of 
          it in his first-born, and he shall set up the gates of it in his 
          youngest son. And so did Hozan of Baethel; he laid the foundation in Abiron 
          his first-born, and set up the gates of it in his youngest surviving son.

          LXX Joshua 17:1 And the borders of the tribe of the children of Manasse, 
          (for he was the first-born of Joseph) assigned to Machir the 
          firstborn of Manasse the father of Galaad, for he was a warrior, were 
          in the land of Galaad and of Basan.

          LXX 2 Samuel 3:2 And sons were born to David in Chebron: and his 
          first-born was Ammon the son of Achinoom the Jezraelitess.

          LXX 2 Samuel 13:21 And king David heard of all these things, and was very 
          angry; but he did not grieve the spirit of his son Amnon, because be loved 
          him, for he was his first-born.

          LXX 1 Kings 16:34 And in his days Achiel the Baethelite built Jericho; he 
          laid the foundation of it in Abiron his first-born, and he set up the 
          doors of it in Segub his younger son, according to the word of the Lord 
          which he spoke by Joshua the son of Naue.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 1:29 And these are their generations: the first-born of 
          Ismael, Nabaeoth, and Kedar, Nabdeel, Massam,

          LXX 1 Chronicles 2:3 The sons of Juda; Er, Aunan, Selom. These three were 
          born to him of the daughter of Sava the Chananitish woman: and Er, the 
          first-born of Juda, was wicked before the Lord, and he slew him.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 2:13 And Jessae begot his first-born Eliab, Aminadab 
          was the second, Samaa the third,

          LXX 1 Chronicles 2:25 And the sons of Jerameel the first-born of Esron 
          were, the first-born Ram, and Banaa, and Aram, and Asan his brother.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 2:27 And the sons of Ram the first-born of Jerameel 
          were Maas, and Jamin, and Acor.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 2:42 And the sons of Chaleb the brother of Jerameel were, 
          Marisa his first-born, he is the father of Ziph:-- and the sons of 
          Marisa the father of Chebron.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 2:50 These were the sons of Chaleb: the sons of Or the 
          first-born of Ephratha; Sobal the father of Cariathiarim,

          LXX 1 Chronicles 3:15 And the sons of Josia; the first-born Joanan, 
          the second Joakim, the third Sedekias, the fourth Salum.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 4:4 And Phanuel the father of Gedor, and Jazer the father 
          of Osan: these are the sons of Or, the first-born of Ephratha, the 
          father of Baethalaen.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 5:1 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel 
          (for he was the first-born; but because of his going up to his father's 
          couch, his father gave his blessing to his son Joseph, even the son Israel; 
          and he was not reckoned as first-born;

          LXX 1 Chronicles 5:3 The sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; 
          Enoch, and Phallus, Asrom, and Charmi.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 6:28 The sons of Samuel; the first-born Sani, and 
          Abia.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 8:1 Now Benjamin begot Bale his first-born, and 
          Asbel his second son, Aara the third, Noa the fourth,

          LXX 1 Chronicles 8:30 And her first-born son was Abdon, and Sur, and 
          Kis, and Baal, and Nadab, and Ner,

          LXX 1 Chronicles 8:38 And Esel had six sons, and these were their name; 
          Ezricam his first-born, and Ismael, and Saraia, and Abdia, and Anan, 
          and Asa: all these were the sons of Esel.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 8:39 And the sons of Asel his brother; AElam his 
          first-born, and Jas the second, and Eliphalet the third.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 9:5 And of the Selonites; Asaia his first-born, and 
          his sons.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 9:36 And his first-born son was Abdon, and he had 
          Sur, and Kis, and Baal, and Ner, and Nadab,

          LXX 1 Chronicles 9:44 And Esel had six sons, and these were their names; 
          Esricam his first-born, and Ismael, and Saraia, and Abdia, and Anan, 
          and Asa: these were the sons of Esel.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 26:6 And to Samaias his son were born the sons of his 
          first-born, chiefs over the house of their father, for they were mighty.

          LXX Nehemiah 10:36 the first-born of our sons, and of our 
          cattle, as it is written in the law, and the first-born of our herds 
          and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, for the 
          priests that minister in the house of our God.

          LXX Psalm 135:8 Who smote the first-born of Egypt, both man and 
          beast.

          LXX Psalm 136:10 To him who smote Egypt with their first-born; for 
          his mercy endures for ever.

          LXX Jeremiah 31:9 (38:9) They went forth with weeping, and I will bring them 
          back with consolation, causing them to lodge by the channels of waters in a 
          straight way, and they shall not err in it: for I am become a father to 
          Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born.

          LXX Micah 6:7 Will the Lord accept thousands of rams, or ten thousands of 
          fat goats? should I give my first-born for ungodliness, the fruit of 
          my body for the sin of my soul?

As you can see there are many examples of the firstborn[PRWTOTOKOS] as a separate,  subordinate, and most of the time the actual FIRST BORN member of a family. 
It should be noted too,  that Jesus, unlike Ephraim, Jacob and Israel, was never GIVEN the title of "firstborn". He was simply spoken of as firstborn in the temporal sense in passages like the ones at Col. 1:15, 18, Heb. 1:6, Rev. 1:5 and Romans 8:29. 
When this changes, "the firstborn of" is used as part of a group. If it is "the firstborn of" Israel(Ex. 6:14), it is one of the sons of Israel, if it is "the firstborn of" Pharoah(Ex. 11:5) it is a member of the house of Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15) then it is an animal also. Why then should this rule be changed as it applies to "the firstborn of" creation? Obviously Jesus is a created being, as he was historically always thought to be the Wisdom of Proverbs. Is this a stretch?
"She [Wisdom] is God's associate in his works, and his agent in making all things (Prov 8:22-30; see also Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)." footnote at Wisdom 8:2-21 in the New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV 
"The doctrine of wisdom, thus outlined in the OT, will be resumed in the NT which will give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ 
Jesus is referred to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt 11:19 par.; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt 23:34-36; 1 Co 1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation and preservation of the world, Col 1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, 1Co 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17seq. 
Finally, John in his prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the 
Word, and his gospel throughout represents Christ as the Wisdom of God. See Jn 6:35t. 
Hence, Christian tradition from St Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the OT the 
person of Christ himself." footnote New Jerusalem Bible at Prov 8.
Why is this damaging to Trinitarians? Because Wisdom was created!
"He created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never cease."Sirach24:9 
The Interpreter's Bible [p.830] says of Prov 8:22: "The verb QANAH may be translated either way. In view of the statements made in the following verses concerning wisdom, it would seem that the RSV translates correctly; cf. also the following quotations from Ecclesiasticus:
Wisdom was created before them all, 
And sound intelligence from eternity (Ecclus 1:4)

The Lord himself created her (Ecclus 1:9

Then the Creator of all gave me his command; 
And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT)."

Also see Proverbs 8:22 NRSV, "The LORD created me at the beginning of his work."

"The LORD formed me as the first of his works, the beginning of 
his deeds of old." Smith&Goodspeed


cornerst writes:The New World Translation adds the word "other" four times, which is not in the Greek. They add to Scripture to make it look like Jesus was the first-created thing among God's creation. According to Jehovah's Witnesses, God created Jesus and then Jesus created all other things. This mistranslation of Col. 1:16-17 presents a problem for the Jehovah's Witnesses. Isaiah 44:24 says, "Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone'". How is it possible for the LORD (Jehovah) to stretch out the heavens alone and yet Jesus, "the first created thing," be the one who did it? They can't both be true. Jesus is not the created, but the Creator (John 1:3,10, Heb. 1:10, Col. 1:16).

Response: Well let us see if John 1:3,10, Heb. 1:10, Col. 1:16 picture Jesus as the creator.

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands". Heb. 1:10 ASV 
In Hebrews 1:10-12 the apostle Paul uses a scripture earlier applied to Jehovah in Ps. 102. Does that make them the same person? No! For instance verse 8 says, "But of the Son [he saith,] 
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." These words were earlier applied to King Solomon in Ps. 45:6 (see also 2Sam. 7:14). Is King Solomon  the same person as Jesus? No! Jesus is simply doing a work earlier prefigured by Solomon, also sharing some of the qualities of Solomon, such as wisdom. So when it comes to Jehovah in Ps. 102 the writer here attributes these qualities to Jesus Christ, because Jesus is the one whom God used in the work of creation and to whom he has now committed all authority "in heaven and on the earth." (Matt. 28:18; Col. 1:15-17) Jesus represents the God that no one has ever seen to us fully in all his qualities and actions.(John 1:18) 
Psalm 22, attributed to David, relates, partly in figurative language, some of the sufferings of Christ. (Compare Psalm 22:1 with Mark 15:34; also compare the entire psalm with the four gospel accounts of Jesus' trial and impalement.) Are Jesus and David the same person? No! A scripture in Matthew 2:15 applies to Jesus, but the earlier reference in Hosea 11:1 applies to Israel. Does than make them the same? No! There is a prophecy about Elijah in Malachi 4:5 that is applied to John the Baptist in Matthew 17:12,13; 11:14. Is John the Baptist really Elijah? No! They just did a similar work. I think you get the point. For more on this verse, click here.

"John 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made 
that hath been made.  {1:10} He was in the world, and the world was made 
through him, and the world knew him not." ASV 
In looking at the Greek word here for "apart from" CWRIS, Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of its occurence in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one." 
In this way, the Bible in Living English handles it superbly, "Everything was made by his agency." Jn 1:3 
Even Origen acknowledged this, "And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages, " showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH [DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this but the Father?" 
Origen's Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328 
This scripture ties into the next one at Colossians 1:16. As we can see, the world was made "through him". We have already seen that Wisdom  was created, but he was also with him at creation. "When he marked out the foundations of the earth; Then I was beside him, like a master workman; And I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always." Prov. 8:29, 30 RSV 
  The bible tells us that the angels were there too:"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding....When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:4,7 ASV But as we can see from Proverbs, Wisdom/Jesus shared a special relationship with his God Jehovah. 
Col 1:16 "for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, 
things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him" ASV 
Again we see that all things were "created thru him". This is only right, after all the Bible says: "For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5 ASV Now a mediator cannot be the person he is mediating for. For instance Moses is also called a mediator at Gal. 3:19. Moses, like Jesus,  shared a special relationship with God. Both were even called by the respectful title "god", (Ex. 7:1; John 1:1) though Jesus is mightier than Moses. (Is. 9:6) 
But let us expand further. Let us look at Hebrews 1: 
"In the past God spoke to our ancestors many times and in many ways through the prophets, {1:2} but in these last days he has spoken to us through his Son. He is the one through whom God created the universe." TEV 
In verse 1, God spoke. The prophets were intermediate agents (Greek: EN). 
God uses agents to carry out his will. 
In verse 2, God spoke, but just like the prophets,  the Son was an intermediate agent (Greek: EN). 
For example, Col 1:16 does not teach that Jesus is the almighty creator. Rather, it uses same Greek preposition EN which is used of the Son with an active source in the context (like the Father in vss. 12 and 13). The Father redeems "BY/IN/THROUGH" (Greek: EN) the Son. The Father creates "BY/IN/THROUGH" (Greek: EN) the Son. Since the Father creates "BY/IN/THROUGH" Son as agent, it is necessary that the creation of the Son was a special case. That is why Paul explicitly says that the Son is the "firstborn of" all creation ( PRWTOTOKOS), the "first-begotten of all creatures" Tyndale. Tyndale also refers to Jesus in Rev. 3:14 as the "beginning of the creatures of God."

In John 1:3 it is clear that agency is intended since DIA is used with a passive verb, or created "THROUGH" (not "by") the Word. That "through" is the clear meaning and not "by" is made explicitly clear by Paul when he said of the relationship between God and Christ in 1 Cor 8:5,6: "One God, the Father, out of (Greek: EK) whom all things are, and we unto him; and one lord, Jesus Christ "through" (Greek: DIA) whom all things are, and we through him. "

When you consider all the times that God and Christ Jesus are mentioned in Colossians, the  Spirit is mentioned a scant 2 times. Hardly a Trinity! "You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest).

It should be noted that Trinitarians do not beleive that Jesus is the Father. They believe that the Father is God, and that the Son, Jesus, is equally God. Yet they are not the same, but at the same time they are not plural, but one. So when trinitarians say that Jesus is God, they don't really mean that. What they mean is that Jesus is God the Son, the second person of a consubstantial Trinity. A phrase that is never used in the Bible!

cornerst writes: The New World Translation adds the word "other" four times, which is not in the Greek.

Response: Now let's look at the insertion of the word "other" in the New World Translation at 
Colossians chapter 1. We are going to start of by looking at some other scriptures where this is 
done. 
Luke 21:29 
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV) 
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV) 
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible(NAB)

Luke 11:42 
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV) 
"and of every [other] vegetables." NWT 
"and all the other herbs." TEV 
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version

In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but translators felt a need 
to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets? 
"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Chrisitian Literature" by F. Blass and 
A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other". 
The book Theology and Bias in Bible Translations by Professor Rolf Furuli when talking about 
the word "other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses 
around OTHER may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but 
in a given context it is a legitimate part of PAS."

Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James Version and the New American Standard Version? Those are words that are not in the original text, yet there are thousands of them.