Earth in the scriptures:The Watchtower society's commentary.

EARTH

The fifth-largest planet of the solar system and the third in order of position from the sun. It is an oblate spheroid, being slightly flattened at the poles. Satellite observations have indicated other slight irregularities in the shape of the earth. Its mass is approximately 5.98 × 1024 kg (13.18 × 1024 lb). Its area is about 510,000,000 sq km (197,000,000 sq mi). Earth’s measurements are (approximately): circumference at the equator, just over 40,000 km (24,900 mi); diameter at the equator, 12,750 km (7,920 mi). Oceans and seas cover approximately 71 percent of its surface, leaving about 149,000,000 sq km (57,500,000 sq mi) of land surface.

The earth rotates on its axis, bringing about day and night. (Ge 1:4, 5) A solar day or an apparent day is a period of 24 hours, the time taken for an observer at any one point on the earth to be again in the same position relative to the sun. The tropical year, which concerns the return of the seasons, the interval between two consecutive returns of the sun to the vernal equinox, is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds, on the average. This figure is the one used in solar-year calendar reckoning, and its fractional nature has caused much difficulty in accurate calendar making.

The axis of the earth tilts 23° 27ʹ away from a perpendicular to the earth’s orbit. The gyroscopic effect of rotation holds the earth’s axis in basically the same direction relative to the stars regardless of its location in its orbit around the sun. This tilt of the axis brings about the seasons.

The earth’s atmosphere, composed principally of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, and other gases, extends over 960 km (600 mi) above the earth’s surface. Beyond this is what is termed “outer space.”

Bible Terms and Significance. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used for earth as a planet is ʼeʹrets. ʼEʹrets refers to (1) earth, as opposed to heaven, or sky (Ge 1:2); (2) land, country, territory (Ge 10:10); (3) ground, surface of the ground (Ge 1:26); (4) people of all the globe (Ge 18:25).

The word ʼadha·mahʹ is translated “ground,” “soil,” or “land.” ʼAdha·mahʹ refers to (1) ground as tilled, yielding sustenance (Ge 3:23); (2) piece of ground, landed property (Ge 47:18); (3) earth as material substance, soil, dirt (Jer 14:4; 1Sa 4:12); (4) ground as earth’s visible surface (Ge 1:25); (5) land, territory, country (Le 20:24); (6) whole earth, inhabited earth (Ge 12:3). ʼAdha·mahʹ seems to be related etymologically to the word ʼa·dhamʹ, the first man Adam having been made from the dust of the ground.​—Ge 2:7.

In the Greek Scriptures, ge denotes earth as arable land or soil. (Mt 13:5, 8) It is used to designate the material from which Adam was made, the earth (1Co 15:47); the earthly globe (Mt 5:18, 35; 6:19); earth as a habitation for human creatures and animals (Lu 21:35; Ac 1:8; 8:33; 10:12; 11:6; 17:26); land, country, territory (Lu 4:25; Joh 3:22); ground (Mt 10:29; Mr 4:26); land, shore, as contrasted with seas or waters. (Joh 21:8, 9, 11; Mr 4:1).

Oi·kou·meʹne, translated “world” in the King James Version, denotes “inhabited earth.”​—Mt 24:14; Lu 2:1; Ac 17:6; Re 12:9.

In each case of all the above senses in which these words are used, the form of the word in the original language, and more particularly the setting or context, determine which sense is meant.

The Hebrews divided the earth into four quarters or regions corresponding to the four points of the compass. In the Hebrew Scriptures the words “before” and “in front of” designate and are translated “east” (Ge 12:8); “behind” may mean “west” (Isa 9:12); “the right side” may denote “south” (1Sa 23:24); and “the left” may be translated “north” (Job 23:8, 9; compare Ro). East was also (in Heb.) sometimes called the sunrising, as for example, at Joshua 4:19. West (in Heb.) was the setting of the sun. (2Ch 32:30) Also, physical characteristics were used. Being almost the total western boundary of Palestine, the “Sea” (the Mediterranean) was sometimes used for west.​—Nu 34:6.

Creation. The planet’s coming into existence is recounted in the Bible with the simple statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Ge 1:1) Just how long ago the starry heavens and the earth were created is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, there is no basis for Bible scholars to take issue with scientific calculations of the age of the planet. Scientists estimate the age of some rocks as being three and a half billion years, and the earth itself as being about four to four and a half billion or more years.

As to time, the Scriptures are more definite about the six creative days of the Genesis account. These days have to do, not with the creation of earth’s matter or material, but with the arranging and preparing of it for man’s habitation.

The Bible does not reveal whether God created life on any of the other planets in the universe. However, astronomers today have not found proof that life exists on any of these planets and, in fact, know of no planet besides the earth that is at present capable of supporting the life of fleshly creatures.

Purpose. Like all other created things, the earth was brought into existence because of Jehovah’s will (“pleasure,” KJ). (Re 4:11) It was created to remain forever. (Ps 78:69; 104:5; 119:90; Ec 1:4) God speaks of himself as a God of purpose and declares that his purposes are certain to come to fruition. (Isa 46:10; 55:11) He made his purpose for the earth very clear when he said to the first human pair: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Ge 1:28) There were no flaws in earth or the things on it. Having created all necessary things, Jehovah saw that they were “very good” and “proceeded to rest” or desist from other earthly creative works.​—Ge 1:31–2:2.

Man’s habitation on earth is also permanent. When God gave man the law regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, he implied that man could live on earth forever. (Ge 2:17) We are assured by Jehovah’s own words that “all the days the earth continues, seed sowing and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, will never cease” (Ge 8:22) and that he will never destroy all flesh again by a flood. (Ge 9:12-16) Jehovah says that he did not make the earth for nothing but, rather, that he has given it to men as a home and that death will eventually be done away with. God’s purpose, therefore, is for the earth to be the habitation of man in perfection and happiness with eternal life.​—Ps 37:11; 115:16; Isa 45:18; Re 21:3, 4.

That this is the purpose of Jehovah God, sacred to him and not to be thwarted, is indicated when the Bible says: “And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made . . . And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.” (Ge 2:2, 3) The seventh, or rest, day is not shown in the Genesis account as ending, as in the case of the other six days. The apostle Paul explained that the rest day of God had been continuous right through Israelite history down to his own time and had not yet ended. (Heb 3:7-11; 4:3-9) God says the seventh day was set aside as sacred to him. He would carry out his purpose toward the earth; it would be fully accomplished during that day, with no necessity of further creative works toward the earth during that time.

The Bible’s Harmony With Scientific Facts. The Bible, at Job 26:7, speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing.” Science says that the earth remains in its orbit in space primarily because of the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force. These forces, of course, are invisible. Therefore the earth, like other heavenly bodies, is suspended in space as if hanging on nothing. Speaking from Jehovah’s viewpoint, the prophet Isaiah wrote under inspiration: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isa 40:22) The Bible says: “He [God] has described a circle upon the face of the waters.” (Job 26:10) The waters are limited by his decree to their proper place. They do not come up and inundate the land; neither do they fly off into space. (Job 38:8-11) From the viewpoint of Jehovah, the earth’s face, or the surface of the waters, would, of course, have a circular form, just as the edge of the moon presents a circular appearance to us. Before land surfaces appeared, the surface of the entire globe was one circular (spherical) mass of surging waters.​—Ge 1:2.

Bible writers often speak from the standpoint of the observer on the earth, or from his particular position geographically, as we often naturally do today. For example, the Bible mentions “the sunrising.” (Nu 2:3; 34:15) Some have seized upon this as an opportunity to discredit the Bible as scientifically inaccurate, claiming that the Hebrews viewed earth as the center of things, with the sun revolving around it. But the Bible writers nowhere expressed such a belief. These same critics overlook the fact that they themselves use the identical expression and that it is in all of their almanacs. It is common to hear someone say, ‘it is sunrise,’ or ‘the sun has set,’ or ‘the sun traveled across the sky.’ The Bible also speaks of “the extremity of the earth” (Ps 46:9), “the ends of the earth” (Ps 22:27), “the four extremities of the earth” (Isa 11:12), “the four corners of the earth,” and “the four winds of the earth” (Re 7:1). These expressions cannot be taken to prove that the Hebrews understood the earth to be square. The number four is often used to denote that which is fully rounded out, as it were, just as we have four directions and sometimes employ the expressions “to the ends of the earth,” “to the four corners of the earth,” in the sense of embracing all the earth.​—Compare Eze 1:15-17; Lu 13:29.

Figurative and Symbolic Expressions. The earth is spoken of figuratively in several instances. It is likened to a building, at Job 38:4-6, when Jehovah asks Job questions concerning earth’s creation and Jehovah’s management of it that Job obviously cannot answer. Jehovah also uses a figurative expression describing the result of earth’s rotation. He says: “[The earth] transforms itself like clay under a seal.” (Job 38:14) In Bible times some seals for “signing” documents were in the form of a roller engraved with the writer’s emblem. It was rolled over the soft clay document or clay envelope, leaving behind it an impression in the clay. In similar manner, at the arrival of dawn, the portion of the earth coming from the blackness of night begins to show itself to have form and color as the sunlight moves progressively across its face. The heavens, the location of Jehovah’s throne, being higher than the earth, the earth is, figuratively, his footstool. (Ps 103:11; Isa 55:9; 66:1; Mt 5:35; Ac 7:49) Those who are in Sheol, or Hades, the common grave of mankind, are regarded as being under the earth.​—Re 5:3.

The apostle Peter compares the literal heavens and earth (2Pe 3:5) with the symbolic heavens and earth (2Pe 3:7). “The heavens” of verse 7 do not mean Jehovah’s own dwelling place, the place of his throne in the heavens. Jehovah’s heavens cannot be shaken. Neither is “the earth” in the same verse the literal planet earth, for Jehovah says that he has established the earth firmly. (Ps 78:69; 119:90) Yet, God says that he will shake both the heavens and the earth (Hag 2:21; Heb 12:26), that the heavens and earth will flee away before him, and that new heavens and a new earth will be established. (2Pe 3:13; Re 20:11; 21:1) It is evident that “heavens” is symbolic and that “earth” here has symbolic reference to a society of people living on the earth, just as at Psalm 96:1.​—See HEAVEN (New heavens and new earth).

Earth is also symbolically used to denote the firmer, more stable elements of mankind. The restless, unstable elements of mankind are illustrated by the characteristic restlessness of the sea.​—Isa 57:20; Jas 1:6; Jude 13; compare Re 12:16; 20:11; 21:1.

John 3:31 contrasts one that comes from above as being higher than one who comes from the earth (ge). The Greek word e·piʹgei·os, “earthly,” is used to denote earthly, physical things, especially as contrasted with heavenly things, and as being lower and of coarser material. Man is made of earth’s material. (2Co 5:1; compare 1Co 15:46-49.) Nevertheless, he can please God by living a “spiritual” life, a life directed by God’s Word and spirit. (1Co 2:12, 15, 16; Heb 12:9) Because of mankind’s fall into sin and their tendency toward material things to the neglect or exclusion of spiritual things (Ge 8:21; 1Co 2:14), “earthly” can have an undesirable connotation, meaning “corrupt,” or “in opposition to the spirit.”​—Php 3:19; Jas 3:15.

Yet more Darwinian storytelling.

Did Fish as Flotsam Conquer Land?
Günter Bechly


In evolutionary biology, the great transitions from one habitat to a totally different way of life have long proved to be the stuff of good storytelling. Based on an old idea from the eminent vertebrate paleontologist Alfred Romer (1933), Balbus (2014) suggested that tidal modulation influenced the evolution from “fish” to tetrapods in the Devonian period. This was supposed to be thanks to a much smaller distance from the Moon to the Earth, causing greater tidal ranges. Balbus (2014) speculated:

The two earliest known tetrapods with more than fragmentary remains, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, are thought to have been fully (perhaps only predominantly in the case of Ichthyostega) aquatic creatures. The coastal and estuarial waters such organisms and their immediate ancestors are believed to have inhabited would have been subject to sizeable and irregular tides, leaving an inland network of pools. The farthest inland of these pools would on occasion have been left exposed weeks at time, ultimately evaporating. A creature caught in one of these isolated inland pools would consequently have faced dehydration or suffocation.

Now, Witze (2018) reports in Nature News on new results from simulations of the tides in the Devonian by two researchers from Bangor University.

They studied two time periods: 430 million years ago, around the time the first animal lungs evolved, and 400 million years ago, roughly the time of the first known land tetrapods.

What they found were tidal cycles that would have left fish stranded in tidal pools for two weeks.

The team speculates that fish that could have made their way out of the tide pool, and back to the water, would have been more likely to survive. Fossils of some of the earliest known terrestrial tetrapods, such as the Tiktaalik lobe-finned fish from Canada’s Ellesmere Island and trackways in Poland’s Holy Cross mountains, have been found in places that had these high tidal variations.

Well, that sounds interesting, but there are some tiny problems that might spoil this cute hypothesis: Acanthostega and Ichthyostega were actually not marine creatures at all, but strictly confined to freshwater habitats far from the coastline. Balbus (2014) recognized this problem but trivialized it by calling their association with a non-marine inland basin “a more ambiguous tidal zone.” You can’t make such stuff up. What about the famous “missing link,” Tiktaalik? The name Tiktaalik means “big river fish” in the Inuit language and indeed indicates its true provenance. Here is what its discoverer, Neil Shubin, wrote on the official Tiktaalik website:

We know that lobe-finned fish and the first tetrapods lived in freshwater streams because of the sediments we find them in. So we look for freshwater deposits, not marine.

Hmm, but fortunately there are still the Zachelmie trackways discovered a few years ago (Niedźwiedzki et al. 2010) in Poland and dated as not only older than Tiktaalik, but actually older than all other lobe-finned ancestors of tetrapods (the so-called elpistostegids).

These Zachelmie tracks were originally attributed to a marine intertidal depositional environment. So apparently, we have a perfect match of the oldest evidence with the new (old) theory. Indeed, the describers of these tracks also speculated “that the origin of tetrapods occurred, not in the vegetated margins or surrounding seasonal ‘flooded forest’ environments of rivers, as has frequently been argued, but in the marine intertidal and/or lagoonal zone.”

But again, we must spoil the fun: A brand new study by Qvarnström et al. (2018) demonstrates that the Zachelmie locality was misinterpreted in the original description of the tracks and indeed “represents a succession of ephemeral lakes with a restricted and non-marine biota, rather than a marginal marine environment as originally thought.” These tidal pools evaporate in totally unexpected ways, don’t they?

It is true that some elpistostegid lobe-finned fish, which are supposed to belong to the stem of tetrapods and were originally all interpreted as freshwater dwellers, have meanwhile been attributed to brackish estuarine habitats that may have been exposed to tidal influences (Clack 2012). However, the Zachelmie tetrapod tracks are distinctly older than all known elpistostegid fossils and thus cast considerable doubt on the hypothesis that tetrapods really evolved from this group of lobe-finned fish. It’s an inconvenient temporal paradox that is frequently encountered in the fossil record (compare the alleged origin of birds and feathers).

No wonder that Jennifer Clack, a renowned specialist on early tetrapodomorph fossils, remains skeptical about the tidal pool idea: “It’s only one of a plethora of ideas for the origin of land-dwelling tetrapods, any or all of which may have been a part of the answer.” You will not be too far off if you interpret this as meaning: We have no clue!


Literature:

• Balbus SA 2014. “Dynamical, biological, and anthropic consequences of equal lunar and solar angular radii.” Proceedings of the Royal Society A 470: 20140263.
• Clack JA 2012. Gaining Ground: The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods. Indiana University Press, 523 pp.
• Niedźwiedzki G, Szrek P, Narkiewicz K, Narkiewicz M, Ahlberg PE 2010. “Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland.” Nature 463: 43-48.
• Qvarnström M, Szrek P, Ahlberg PE, Niedźwiedzki G 2018. “Non-marine palaeoenvironment associated to the earliest tetrapod tracks.” Scientific Reports 8: 1074.
• Romer AS 1933. Man and the Vertebrates. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
• Shubin N 2009. The Search for Tiktaalik. Website by the University of Chicago.
• Witze A 2018. “Ocean tides could have driven ancient fish to walk.” Nature News 15 February 2018.

The state religion?

American Lysenkoism, and the Darwinists Who Embrace It
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC

On a new episode of ID the Future, Tod Butterfield interviews Michael Egnor, pediatric neurosurgeon at Stony Brook University, about the science-destroying practice of Lysenkoism. Dr. Egnor discusses Trofim Lysenko, a Soviet agronomist who for several decades in the 20th century was allowed to use the power of the state to enforce belief in Lamarckism in the Soviet Union.

The government punished people who questioned the reigning view, and the results were catastrophic. Today the term Lysenkoism applies to any use of government power to enforce scientific orthodoxy. It need not mean the Gulag; it could involve, for instance, the denial of federal grants to quietly enforce Darwinian orthodoxy. Lysenkoism punishes dissenters from politically favored ideas, and holds science back. How?  Download the podcast or listen to it here, and find out.

On Materialism of the gaps.

Mind the Gaps – Before Progressing Toward ID, Leisola Recounts Clearing Away Materialist Myths
David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer

In the new book Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design , co-written with Jonathan Witt, bioengineer Matti Leisola tells the story of his intellectual and scientific journey from Darwinist to Darwin critic and proponent of intelligent design. On a new episode of ID the Future, Todd Butterfield reads the opening pages of the book.

Dr. Leisola explains how before he was able to look at the question of biological origins objectively, he first had to overcome biases and assumptions, built into his previous considerations, that guaranteed conclusions in line with materialism. One bias dictated that design thinking alone could be guilty of “gaps” (as in “God of the gaps”) thinking. Leisola found that, looked at with open eyes, science in fact discovers more and more anomalies, more mysteries, as it progresses. He realized that materialism at every stage inserts its own “gaps” explanations into growing fissures in what we thought we understood.

The Finnish scientist, as we’ve noted before, is not supposed to exist. His book itself, simply by existing, refutes a Darwinist myth. As you’ll hear from the excerpts, he also writes like a dream, which is a plus. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

A pair of twentieth century oracles examined.

Conservation of information v. Materialism.

The echo chamber fights back?

Education or Obfuscation? Avida in Science Class
Sarah Chaffee

What is a mark of a great teacher? One is the ability to take complex subject matter and explain it in a way that your audience can relate to. The opposite would be confusing students with high-tech equipment — for example, a computer program that supposedly demonstrates evolution.

A  paper in The American Biology Teacher this month recommends a student version of the program Avida for classrooms, Avida-ED. The authors note:

[I]t can be difficult to engage students in authentic scientific practice around the topic of evolution, mainly because biological evolution can be difficult to observe. An option that overcomes limitations posed by biological model organisms is digital evolution. Populations of digital organisms — mini-programs similar to computer viruses capable of self-replication — evolve in minutes and can produce large quantities of data in a short time. An example of digital evolution software is Avida, a research platform that was developed to model and test hypotheses about evolutionary mechanisms in a highly controlled and fast system. Avida allows biologists to investigate evolutionary questions that are difficult or impossible to test in organic systems (Adami, 2006), and has been used as a model system in well over a hundred experimental evolution studies for many kinds of evolutionary hypotheses (e.g., Clune et al., 2010; Grabowski etal., 2013).

So the idea is that Avida speeds up speciation. The paper goes on:

Software that simulates evolution is available for educators (e.g., SimBio’s EvoBeaker), but Avida goes further in allowing teachers to incorporate authentic research experiences on evolution in the classroom. Chief among the many advantages of using Avida to study evolutionary processes is that it constitutes a true instance of evolution rather than a simulation of it (Pennock, 2007b). We will not repeat the argument here, but the key point is that Avida implements the causal mechanisms of evolution, producing outcomes that are not predetermined but can be studied experimentally. Digital organisms in Avida (aka “Avidians”) replicate, mutate, and compete with other organisms for resources in their computational environment (Fig. 1). The system possesses all of the requirements necessary for evolution by natural selection to occur (Dennett, 1995). This is why it is especially useful to evolutionary biologists for basic research, but it is also compelling to teachers who want their students to actually observe evolutionary change in the classroom in real time. 

Let’s see here. A “true instance of evolution,” without true organisms. A computer simulation is not a “simulation.” Students can “actually observe evolutionary change in the classroom.”

Strong statements! But perhaps inaccurate? Yes, way off the mark.

Is it true that the program “implements the causal mechanisms of evolution, producing outcomes that are not predetermined but can be studied experimentally”? Of course not. In their recent book Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics, Robert Marks, William Dembski, and Winston Ewert, of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, offer a more sober perspective.

On evolutionary simulations (Avida and others):

When software engineers perform a computer search, they are always looking for ways to improve the results of the search and how to better incorporate knowledge about the program being solved into the search algorithm. Evolution computer programs written by Darwinists, on the other hand, are aimed at demonstrating the Darwinian evolutionary process. The efficiency of the search is of secondary importance.

Despite these differences, the fundamentals of evolutionary models offered by Darwinists and those used by engineers and computer scientists are the same. There is always a teleological goal imposed by an omnipotent programmer, a fitness associated with the goal, a source of active information (e.g. an oracle), and stochastic updates.

On Avida in particular:

Avida is a computer program which, its creators say, “show[s] how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.” …[C]ontrary to the claims of the authors, the source of the success of Avida is not due to the evolutionary algorithm, but to sources of information embedded in the computer program. A strong contribution to the success of Avida is [a] stairstep information source embedded in the computer program….[T]he sources of information can be mined more efficiently using other search algorithms.

At the Evolutionary Informatics Lab website, you can try out an Avida-like program, Minivida, and test for yourself how preprogramed information affects outcomes.

It’s time for a bit of honesty in evolution education! Avida shows that evolutionary processes require intelligent design to hit predetermined targets. That’s the candid takeaway from a lesson about this software. Since we don’t recommend trying to bring ID into public school classrooms, there are undoubtedly more effective uses of class time than playing with Avida-ED.

Breaking out of the echo chamber.

Toward Self-Scrutiny in Science
Sarah Chaffee

An article at Phys.org recognizes a problem in science that we know a bit about. It shows up often in the evolution controversy: lack of self-scrutiny. In his article, “On unconscious bias in science,” Dr. Jaboury Ghazoul of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, describes issues in his own field, environmental science.

He notes the tendency of science towards “‘shoehorning’ observations to fit the theory.” This, he states, is a weakness of the system and not due to fraudulent behavior. Then, he writes:

None of this matters much in my field of plant ecology, beyond taxing the pride of the researchers concerned. It is more serious when derived conclusions have applied relevance, by influencing resource management or environmental policies. In applied fields of research, there is more pressure to deliver evidence, and more to be gained in doing so — which can increase the likelihood of unconscious bias. This might explain contrasting conclusions on, for example, toxicity of pesticides on bees from studies funded by corporations or environmental organisations.

This brings us to value-laden sciences such as conservation. Conservation scientists have an agenda. Our science provides an evidence base for conservation action, set within the value that global biodiversity ought to be protected. Conservation science aims to justify this value by demonstrating the benefits of biodiversity to local and global communities. But how credible can these claims be if research serves a normative conservation agenda? We are not dispassionate observers. If we question the veracity of studies funded by agrichemical industries, then shouldn’t the objectivity of research by avowed conservationists be subject to similar scrutiny?

Think about how this kind of reasoning relates to the intelligent design and evolution debate. If scientists come with the presupposition that there will be a naturalistic explanation for the origins of the universe and life, can they be “dispassionate observers”?

Some scientists have decided to speak out against those presuppositions. Those who are willing to buck the trend are a small but growing minority. Take a look at this list of 950+ scientists who dissent from Darwinian evolution.

One of them is James Tour of Rice University, who was ranked by Thomson Reuter as one of the top 10 chemists in the world, looking at citations per publication, in 2009. Tour has noted:

Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer — and possibly a radically different — scientific theory. The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.

Let us hope that unassuming attitudes — like those of Ghazoul and Tour — will continue to impact science.

Debunking the junk DNA myth.

More Secret Codes in “Junk DNA”
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC

Scientists find the most interesting things when they suspect function in poorly understood parts of the genome, rather than relegating them to the junk pile as useless. Here are two recent examples.

Silent Code in Action in Actin

“Actin is an essential and abundant intracellular protein that plays a major role in developmental morphogenesis, muscle contraction, cell migration, and cellular homeostasis,” say Vedula et al. in a paper in the journal eLife. A protein this vital commands our attention. How does it perform so many different functions? What governs the destination and activity of the different forms of actin?

The paper reads like a scientific detective story. A team of researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and the National Institutes of Health wanted to know why two forms of actin (isoforms) are nearly indistinguishable in terms of their sequence (except for four amino acids at one end), but perform very different functions in the cell. They also found it intriguing that these isoforms, β-actin and γ-actin, are coded by different genes, but end up looking very similar.

Let’s divulge the conclusion in the title of the paper: “Diverse functions of homologous actin isoforms are defined by their nucleotide, rather than their amino acid sequence.” Do you hear the word “code” coming? How about “silent code”?

Here we tested the hypothesis that β- and γ-actin functions are defined by their nucleotide, rather than their amino acid sequence, using targeted editing of the mouse genome. Although previous studies have shown that disruption of β-actin gene critically impacts cell migration and mouse embryogenesis, we demonstrate here that generation of a mouse lacking β-actin protein by editing β-actin gene to encode γ-actin protein, and vice versa, does not affect cell migration and/or organism survival. Our data suggest that the essential in vivo function of β-actin is provided by the gene sequence independent of the encoded protein isoform. We propose that this regulation constitutes a global ‘silent code’ mechanism that controls the functional diversity of protein isoforms. 

Good old controlled experimentation, using the CRISPR editing tool, showed that editing the gene for one form produced working copies of the other form. Mice that had defective genes for γ-actin could be rescued by editing the β-actin gene to produce γ-actin. All they had to do was edit five nucleotides to produce healthy mice with no β-actin at all, even though previous knockout experiments showed that mice without the β-actin gene die early in development. How could this be?

Further experiments suggested that it’s not the resulting amino acid sequence that determines the function, but “silent” substitutions in the gene. Something in the β-actin gene was regulating the outcome in a different way, even though it generated only γ-actin. The γ-actin isoform went to where β-actin normally went, and performed its function as if it were β-actin.

The researchers note that different isoforms of actin can have vastly different ribosome densities, differing up to a thousand-fold. In the cytoplasm, some isoforms can compensate for other ones. This arrangement provides flexibility to the cell in most cases:

These results suggest the actin isoform with similar ribosome density can plausibly compensate for the loss of one of the isoforms. In agreement, given the orders of magnitude difference in ribosome density between β-actin and other actin isoforms, none of the other actin isoforms can compensate for the loss of β-actin. We propose that changes in ribosome density arising from silent substitutions in nucleotide sequence, affect translation dynamics and protein accumulation rates, which in turn regulate functional diversity of actins.

The authors feel this kind of “silent code” may be at work in other protein families as well. The word “code” is ubiquitous throughout this paper. In another case, they describe the targeting of one actin isoform to the cell periphery by what they call “zipcode-mediated transport.” They have more to say about coding than evolution, in fact, except in one paragraph where they invoke the common Darwinian excuse that an essential gene tends to be conserved against alteration:

Despite the fact that non-muscle actin isoform genes have evolutionarily diverged > 100  million years ago, they have retained remarkable sequence conservation, far higher than what  would be expected if the synonymous substitutions in their coding sequence were completely randomized. (Erba et al., 1986). This is consistent with our idea that actin isoform coding  sequence exists under additional evolutionary pressure, over and above the conservation of  amino acid sequence. We propose that at least some of this pressure is aimed to maintain the divergent translation dynamics within the actin family, in order to drive their divergent functions.

It appears, however, that intelligent design research could be more productive in follow-up studies. They conclude, “Further systematic analysis of knockouts of homologous isoforms would enable establishing the universality of the ‘silent code.’”

Dark Matter in Your Brain

A more appropriate term for “junk DNA” might be “dark matter” — sequences that are not yet understood. Nature News illustrates a good use of this metaphor in an article, “‘Dark matter’ DNA influences brain development.” Amy Maxmen writes, “Researchers are finally figuring out the purpose behind some genome sequences that are nearly identical across vertebrates.”

A puzzle posed by segments of ‘dark matter’ in genomes — long, winding strands of DNA with no obvious functions — has teased scientists for more than a decade. Now, a team has finally solved the riddle.

The conundrum has centred on DNA sequences that do not encode proteins, and yet remain identical across a broad range of animals. By deleting some of these ‘ultraconserved elements’, researchers have found that these sequences guide brain development by fine-tuning the expression of protein-coding genes.

There’s no reason to suspect that any of the heroes of this article doubt evolutionary theory. But one lead researcher of a new paper did what a good design scientist would do: keep looking for function until you find it.

The results, published on 18 January in Cell, validate the hypotheses of scientists who have speculated that all ultraconserved elements are vital to life — despite the fact that researchers knew very little about their functions.

“People told us we should have waited to publish until we knew what they did. Now I’m like, dude, it took 14 years to figure this out,” says Gill Bejerano, a genomicist at Stanford University in California, who described ultraconserved elements in 2004.

What they found is the opposite of evolutionary expectations, even though the article assumes evolution:

Bejerano and his colleagues originally noticed ultraconserved elements when they compared the human genome to those of mice, rats and chickens, and found 481 stretches of DNA that were incredibly similar across the species. That was surprising, because DNA mutates from generation to generation — and these animal lineages have been evolving independently for up to 200 million years.

Genes that encode proteins tend to have relatively few mutations because if those changes disrupt the corresponding protein and the animal dies before reproducing, the mutated gene isn’t passed down to offspring. On the basis of this logic, some genomicists suspected that natural selection had similarly weeded out mutations in ultraconserved regions. Even though the sequences do not encode proteins, they thought, their functions must be so vital that they cannot tolerate imperfection.

You have to wonder what function Darwinian evolution had in this research. The expectations were wrong, the results were surprising, and the team found more design than was previously known — to the point of implying perfection. The only evolution-talk sounds like an after-the-fact gloss to keep the preferred narrative from being falsified.

For more on the tortured subject of supposed trash in the genome, see The Myth of Junk DNA, by Jonathan Wells.

On ancient Babylon:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

BABYLON



Babʹy·lon) [Confusion].

1. The later name given to Babel. This city of renown was located along the Euphrates River on the Plains of Shinar approximately 870 km (540 mi) E of Jerusalem and some 80 km (50 mi) S of Baghdad. The ruins of Babylon extend over a vast area in the form of a triangle. Several mounds are scattered over the area. Tell Babil (Mujelibe), in the northern part of the triangle, preserves the ancient name and is located about 10 km (6 mi) N of Hilla, Iraq.​—See BABYLON No. 2; SHINAR.

The city lay on both sides of the Euphrates River. A double system of walls surrounded Babylon, making it seemingly impregnable.

The inner rampart, constructed of crude bricks, consisted of two walls. The inner wall was 6.5 m (21.5 ft) thick. The outer wall, situated 7 m (23 ft) away, was about 3.5 m (11.5 ft) thick. These walls were buttressed by defense towers, which also served to reinforce the walls structurally. About 20 m (66 ft) outside the outer wall was a quay made of burnt brick set in bitumen. Outside this wall was a moat connected with the Euphrates to the N and S of the city. It provided both water supply and protection against enemy armies. Babylonian documents indicate that eight gates gave access to the interior of the city. So far, four of Babylon’s gates have been discovered and excavated.

The outer rampart E of the Euphrates was added by Nebuchadnezzar II (who destroyed Solomon’s temple), thus enclosing a large area of the plain to the N, E, and S for the people living nearby to flee to in case of war. This outer rampart also consisted of two walls. The inner wall, made of unbaked bricks, was about 7 m (23 ft) thick and was buttressed with defense towers. Beyond this, about 12 m (40 ft) away, was the outer wall of baked bricks, made in two parts that were interlocked by their towers: one was almost 8 m (26 ft) thick, and the adjoining part was about 3.5 m (11.5 ft) thick.

Nabonidus joined the ends of the outer rampart by constructing a wall along the eastern bank of the river. This wall was about 8.5 m (28 ft) wide and also had towers as well as a quay 3.5 m (11.5 ft) wide.

Herodotus, Greek historian of the fifth century B.C.E., says that the Euphrates River was flanked on either side with a continuous quay, which was separated from the city proper by walls having gateways. According to him, the city walls were about 90 m (295 ft) high, 26.5 m (87 ft) thick, and about 95 km (59 mi) long. However, it appears that Herodotus exaggerated the facts regarding Babylon. Archaeological evidence shows that Babylon was much smaller in size, with the outer rampart much shorter in length and height. No evidence has been found to verify the existence of a quay lining the immediate western bank of the river.

Streets ran through the city from the gates in the massive walls. The Processional Way, the main boulevard, was paved and the walls alongside it were decorated with lions. (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 323) Nebuchadnezzar II repaired and enlarged the old palace and built a summer palace some 2 km (1.5 mi) to the north. He also built a great structure of vaulted archways, tier upon tier, known as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and famed as a “wonder of the ancient world.”

This sprawling metropolis astride the watercourse of the Euphrates was a commercial and industrial center of world trade. More than an important manufacturing center, it was a commercial depot for trade between the peoples of the East and the West, both by land and by sea. Thus her fleet had access to the Persian Gulf and the seas far beyond.

History. Nimrod, who lived in the latter part of the third millennium B.C.E., founded Babylon as the capital of man’s first political empire. Construction of this city, however, suddenly came to a halt when confusion in communication occurred. (Ge 11:9) Later generations of rebuilders came and went. Hammurabi enlarged the city, strengthened it, and made it the capital of the Babylonian Empire under Semitic rule.

Under the control of the Assyrian World Power, Babylon figured in various struggles and revolts. Then with the decline of the second world empire, the Chaldean Nabopolassar founded a new dynasty in Babylon about 645 B.C.E. His son Nebuchadnezzar II, who completed the restoration and brought the city to its greatest glory, boasted, “Is not this Babylon the Great, that I myself have built?” (Da 4:30) In such glory it continued as the capital of the third world power until the night of October 5, 539 B.C.E. (Gregorian calendar), when Babylon fell before the invading Medo-Persian armies under the command of Cyrus the Great.

That fateful night in the city of Babylon, Belshazzar held a banquet with a thousand of his grandees. Nabonidus was not there to see the ominous writing on the plaster wall: “MENE, MENE, TEKEL and PARSIN.” (Da 5:5-28) After suffering defeat at the hands of the Persians, Nabonidus had taken refuge in the city of Borsippa to the SW. But Jehovah’s prophet Daniel was on hand in Babylon on that night of October 5, 539 B.C.E., and he made known the significance of what was written on the wall. The men of Cyrus’ army were not sleeping in their encampment around Babylon’s seemingly impregnable walls. For them it was a night of great activity. In brilliant strategy Cyrus’ army engineers diverted the mighty Euphrates River from its course through the city of Babylon. Then down the riverbed the Persians moved, up over the riverbanks, to take the city by surprise through the gates along the quay. Quickly passing through the streets, killing all who resisted, they captured the palace and put Belshazzar to death. It was all over. In one night Babylon had fallen, ending centuries of Semitic supremacy; control of Babylon became Aryan, and Jehovah’s word of prophecy was fulfilled.​—Isa 44:27; 45:1, 2; Jer 50:38; 51:30-32; see PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 325; CYRUS.

From that memorable date, 539 B.C.E., Babylon’s glory began to fade as the city declined. Twice it revolted against the Persian emperor Darius I (Hystaspis), and on the second occasion it was dismantled. A partially restored city rebelled against Xerxes I and was plundered. Alexander the Great intended to make Babylon his capital, but he suddenly died in 323 B.C.E. Nicator conquered the city in 312 B.C.E. and transported much of its material to the banks of the Tigris for use in building his new capital of Seleucia. However, the city and a settlement of Jews remained in early Christian times, giving the apostle Peter reason to visit Babylon, as noted in his letter. (1Pe 5:13) Inscriptions found there show that Babylon’s temple of Bel existed as late as 75 C.E. By the fourth century C.E. the city was in ruins, and eventually passed out of existence. It became nothing more than “piles of stones.”​—Jer 51:37.

Today nothing remains of Babylon but mounds and ruins, a veritable wasteland. (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 324) The book Archaeology and Old Testament Study states: “These extensive ruins, of which, despite Koldewey’s work, only a small proportion has been excavated, have during past centuries been extensively plundered for building materials. Partly in consequence of this, much of the surface now presents an appearance of such chaotic disorder that it is strongly evocative of the prophecies of Isa. xiii. 19–22 and Jer. l. 39 f., the impression of desolation being further heightened by the aridity which marks a large part of the area of the ruins.”​—Edited by D. W. Thomas, Oxford, 1967, p. 41.

Religion. Babylon was a most religious place. Evidence from excavations and from ancient texts points to the existence of more than 50 temples. The principal god of the imperial city was Marduk, called Merodach in the Bible. It has been suggested that Nimrod was deified as Marduk, but the opinions of scholars as to identifications of gods with specific humans vary. Triads of deities were also prominent in the Babylonian religion. One of these, made up of two gods and a goddess, was Sin (the moon-god), Shamash (the sun-god), and Ishtar; these were said to be the rulers of the zodiac. And still another triad was composed of the devils Labartu, Labasu, and Akhkhazu. Idolatry was everywhere in evidence. Babylon was indeed “a land of graven images,” filthy “dungy idols.”​—Jer 50:1, 2, 38.

The Babylonians believed in the immortality of the human soul.​—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, by M. Jastrow, Jr., 1898, p. 556.

The Babylonians developed astrology in an effort to discover man’s future in the stars. (See ASTROLOGERS.) Magic, sorcery, and astrology played a prominent part in their religion. (Isa 47:12, 13; Da 2:27; 4:7) Many heavenly bodies, for example, planets, were named after Babylonian gods. Divination continued to be a basic component of Babylonian religion in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, who used it to reach decisions.​—Eze 21:20-22.

Israel’s Age-Old Enemy. The Bible makes many references to Babylon, beginning with the Genesis account of the original city of Babel. (Ge 10:10; 11:1-9) Included in the spoil taken by Achan from Jericho was “an official garment from Shinar.” (Jos 7:21) After the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel in 740 B.C.E., people from Babylon and other areas were brought in to replace the captive Israelites. (2Ki 17:24, 30) Hezekiah made the mistake of showing messengers from Babylon the treasures of his house; these same treasures as well as some of Hezekiah’s “sons” were later taken to Babylon. (2Ki 20:12-18; 24:12; 25:6, 7) King Manasseh (716-662 B.C.E.) was also taken captive to Babylon, but because he humbled himself, Jehovah restored him to his throne. (2Ch 33:11) King Nebuchadnezzar took the precious utensils of Jehovah’s house to Babylon, along with thousands of captives.​—2Ki 24:1–25:30; 2Ch 36:6-20.

The Christian Greek Scriptures tell how Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), taken prisoner to Babylon, was a link in the lineage to Jesus. (Mt 1:11, 12, 17) The apostle Peter’s first canonical letter was written from Babylon. (1Pe 5:13; see PETER, LETTERS OF.) That “Babylon” was the city on the Euphrates, and not Rome as claimed by some.

See BABYLON THE GREAT.

2. The Babylonian Empire was also referred to by the name of its capital city, Babylon, and was centered in the lower Mesopotamian valley.​—MAP, Vol. 2, p. 321.

Sometimes historians subdivide Babylonia, calling the northern part Akkad (Accad) and the southern part Sumer or Chaldea. Originally this territory was designated in the Scriptures as “the land of Shinar.” (Ge 10:10; 11:2; see SHINAR.) Later, when dominating rulers made Babylon their capital, this area was known as Babylonia. Because Chaldean dynasties sometimes held sway, it was also called “the land of the Chaldeans.” (Jer 24:5; 25:12; Eze 12:13) Some of the ancient cities in Babylonia were Adab, Akkad, Babylon, Borsippa, Erech, Kish, Lagash, Nippur, and Ur. The Babylonian Empire, of course, extended beyond Babylonia, taking in Syria and Palestine down to the border of Egypt.

About the first half of the eighth century B.C.E., an Assyrian king by the name of Tiglath-pileser III (Pul) ruled Babylonia. (2Ki 15:29; 16:7; 1Ch 5:26) Later a Chaldean called Merodach-baladan became the king of Babylon, but after 12 years he was ousted by Sargon II. Sennacherib, in succeeding Sargon II, faced another Babylonian revolt led by Merodach-baladan. After Sennacherib’s unsuccessful attempt to capture Jerusalem in 732 B.C.E., Merodach-baladan sent envoys to Hezekiah of Judah possibly to seek support against Assyria. (Isa 39:1, 2; 2Ki 20:12-18) Later Sennacherib drove out Merodach-baladan and crowned himself ruler of Babylon, a position he held until death. His son Esar-haddon rebuilt Babylon. The Babylonians rallied around Nabopolassar and bestowed the kingship on him. With him began the Neo-Babylonian dynasty that was to continue until Belshazzar. That dynasty from Nabopolassar’s son Nebuchadnezzar on to Belshazzar is represented in Bible prophecy by the head of gold of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream image (Da 2:37-45) and, in a dream-vision of Daniel, by a lion that had the wings of an eagle and the heart of a man.​—Da 7:4.

In 632 B.C.E. Assyria was subdued by this new Chaldean dynasty, with the assistance of Median and Scythian allies. In 625 B.C.E., Nabopolassar’s eldest son, Nebuchadnezzar (II), defeated Pharaoh Necho of Egypt at the battle of Carchemish, and in the same year he assumed the helm of government. (Jer 46:1, 2) Under Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon was “a golden cup” in the hand of Jehovah to pour out indignation against unfaithful Judah and Jerusalem. (Jer 25:15, 17, 18; 51:7) In 620 B.C.E. he compelled Jehoiakim to pay tribute, but after about three years Jehoiakim revolted. In 618 B.C.E., or during Jehoiakim’s third year as tributary ruler, Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem. (2Ki 24:1; 2Ch 36:6) However, before he could be taken by the Babylonians, Jehoiakim died. Jehoiachin, having succeeded his father, quickly surrendered and was taken captive along with other nobility to Babylon in 617 B.C.E. (2Ki 24:12) Zedekiah was next appointed to the throne of Judah, but he too rebelled; and in 609 B.C.E. the Babylonians again laid siege to Jerusalem and finally breached its walls in 607 B.C.E. (2Ki 25:1-10; Jer 52:3-12) That year, 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem was laid desolate, was a significant one in the counting of time until Jehovah, the Universal Sovereign, would set up the world ruler of his choice in Kingdom power.​—See APPOINTED TIMES OF THE NATIONS (Beginning of ‘trampling’).

One cuneiform tablet has been found referring to a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.). This may be the occasion when mighty Egypt was brought under Babylonian control, as foretold by the prophet Ezekiel evidently in the year 591 B.C.E. (Eze 29:17-19) Finally, after a 43-year reign, which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in Babylonia itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October of 582 B.C.E. and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach). This new ruler showed kindness to captive King Jehoiachin. (2Ki 25:27-30) Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk.

More complete historical information is available for Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar, who were evidently ruling as coregents at the time of Babylon’s fall.

By now the Medes and Persians under command of Cyrus the Great were on the march to take over control of Babylonia and become the fourth world power. During the night of October 5, 539 B.C.E. (Gregorian calendar), Babylon was seized, and Belshazzar was slain. In the first year of Cyrus, following the conquest of Babylon, he issued his famous decree permitting a group that included 42,360 males, besides many slaves and professional singers, to return to Jerusalem. Some 200 years later, Persian domination of Babylonia came to an end when Alexander the Great captured Babylon in 331 B.C.E. By the middle of the second century B.C.E. the Parthians, under their king Mithradates I, were in control of Babylonia.

Since Jewish communities had been flourishing in this land, Peter the apostle to the Jews went to Babylon, and it was from there that he wrote at least one of his inspired letters. (Ga 2:7-9; 1Pe 5:13) Jewish leaders in these Eastern communities also developed the Babylonian Targum, otherwise known as the Targum of Onkelos, and produced a number of manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Petersburg Codex of the Latter Prophets, dated 916 C.E., is noteworthy because it embodies a mixture of both Eastern (Babylonian) and Western (Tiberian) readings.

The fix was in?

Hummingbird Study Illustrates Problem with Darwinian Explanations

Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC

Many people keep hummingbird feeders in their back yards, to enjoy the aerobatics of these colorful, quicker-than-the-eye, miniature marvels. Paul Nelson says, “There’s a kind of jewel-like quality that they have” that makes them so admirable. In  Flight: The Genius of Birds, after seeing details about hummingbird science set to dazzling video, it’s no wonder Nelson speaks of the “exquisite workmanship” evident in their construction.

The big question facing science should be, “How did such exquisite workmanship come about?” How can a creature weighing only a few ounces perform maneuvers that flight engineers cannot begin to imitate? And yet evolutionists often seem fixated on much smaller questions, such as “How did one hummer evolve to be larger than another hummer?” A good example of this comes from the University of British Columbia, which announces, “Evolution — and skill — help hefty hummingbirds stay spry.” Looking right past the magnificent photo of a hummingbird’s iridescent feathers and beautiful head and eyes, the authors rush to give credit to blind processes of nature, right from the first word.

Evolved differences in muscle power and wing size — along with a touch of skill — govern hummingbirds’ inflight agility, according to new research in Science.

The findings by University of British Columbia biologists show that larger species of hummingbirds, despite their increased mass, are able to adapt to outmaneuver smaller species.

“Studies of bats, birds and other animals show that increases in body mass can have a detrimental effect on many aspects of flight,” says Roslyn Dakin, co-lead author on the study.

“But with hummingbirds, the correlated evolution of increased wing size and muscle mass helps larger species compensate for their greater body masses.”

You can summarize all the lessons of this study published in Science in just one sentence: “Bigger hummingbirds evolved bigger muscles, and smaller hummingbirds evolved smaller muscles, but all of them can maneuver equally well.” Fascinating. Science marches on.

It’s not that the scientists were lazy. Dakin et al. “recorded over 330,000 maneuvers, including many repeated maneuvers for each bird.”

How does agility evolve? This question is challenging because natural movement has many degrees of freedom and can be influenced by multiple traits. We used computer vision to record thousands of translations, rotations, and turns from more than 200 hummingbirds from 25 species, revealing that distinct performance metrics are correlated and that species diverge in their maneuvering style. Our analysis demonstrates that the enhanced maneuverability of larger species is explained by their proportionately greater muscle capacity and lower wing loading. Fast acceleration maneuvers evolve by recruiting changes in muscle capacity, whereas fast rotations and sharp turns evolve by recruiting changes in wing morphology. Both species and individuals use turns that play to their strengths. These results demonstrate how both skill and biomechanical traits shape maneuvering behavior.

Evolve, evolve, evolve. Everything is explainable by Darwin’s blind process of mistakes that survived the trash heap. That includes “both skill and biomechanical traits” because they are results of evolution, too. Is science advanced by work that ends up saying, “big hummingbirds evolved to be bigger, and small hummingbirds evolved to be smaller”? It wouldn’t matter if they recorded 500,000 maneuvers, or a million maneuvers. The fix was in: evolution would take all the credit.

This result explains why hummingbird maneuverability scales positively with species mass, even though mass has the opposite effect on individual performance: Larger species can achieve maneuverability through the evolution of disproportionate increases in muscle capacity and wing size.

It’s hard to even call natural selection a “process.” It’s more like a statement after the fact, a filter that allows one conclusion but omits all others. Natural selection is not an active agent; it doesn’t cause anything. The bird doesn’t choose to evolve, and the environment doesn’t make it evolve. The Darwinian just looks at the finished product, and says, “it evolved.” The reader is left looking at this masterpiece of flying jewelry, wondering if anything has been explained at all.

Thus, species-level evolutionary changes in muscle capacity and wing morphology affect different, correlated suites of behaviors.

No doubt this study took a lot of work, but the evolution statements do not logically emerge from the data. The scientists learned things about feathers, wing shapes, glycolysis in the muscles, and other measurable factors between different hummingbird species. But what’s evolution got to do with it?

Given that muscle capacity is the primary species-level trait associated with accelerations this result suggests that evolved changes in muscle capacity can compensate for relatively small wings.

The uselessness of evolutionary explanations can be seen by substituting the word “happenstance” for “evolve” in one of their concluding paragraphs:

A key result of our comparative analysis is that evolved [happenstance] changes in the wings primarily determine turns and rotations, whereas evolved [happenstance] changes in muscle capacity primarily determine translations. This indicates that different flight maneuvers evolve by [happenstance] recruiting different traits.

Lest any evolutionist complain that we’re leaving out the ‘selection’ part of the equation, it must be noted that selection is by happenstance, too. No mind is governing the outcome in the Darwinian view of the world. ‘But if selection didn’t operate, the bird would not survive!’ is the comeback. OK then, how satisfying is it to explain anything with the statement, “If it didn’t evolve, it wouldn’t exist”? It’s like the anthropic principle in cosmology, which (in one version) states, “If the universe were not finely tuned to an astonishingly intricate degree, we wouldn’t be here arguing about it, so it must have just happened to work out that way.” There’s something deeply unsatisfying in that kind of explanation.

The paper by Dakin et al., notice, is trying to explain hummingbird differences by evolution. Peter C. Wainright, in a companion piece in Science, points to the paper with the “how” word: “How hummingbirds stay nimble on the wing.” He says the authors “probe the evolution of flight maneuverability in hummingbirds”; he speaks of “the evolution” of hummingbirds; he mentions “the role of flight ability evolution in hummingbird diversification.” Our contention is, what’s the e-word got to do with it? For anything learned about hummingbird maneuverability due to wing shape, tail rotation, or muscle mass, does it help to say that evolution (happenstance) did it? Does this improve scientific understanding of a wonder of nature? Thinking people want to know how this wonder came about. Happenstance is not an answer. It is not an explanation.

You’ll learn more about hummingbirds in nine minutes of the Illustra film than in this paper with its 64 references and 18 mentions of evolution. You’ll learn that:

Engineers are light-years behind the bird that inspired robotic flyers.

Their wings can beat more than 100 times a second.

Hummingbirds are built for speed and maneuverability.

No other bird can fly backward and hover in mid-air while feeding on flowers.

The highly-maneuverable tail is a balancing organ the bird uses to guide direction.

The flight muscle represents about 43% of the bird’s mass.

Hummingbirds employ 3 specialized types of wing beats for forward, backward, and hovering motion.

Hummers have a unique shoulder joint that enables these flight strategies.

Unlike on any other bird, hummingbird wings generate lift on the backstroke.

The shoulder joint can rotate the wing 140 degrees by twisting the upper arm bone, making the entire wing invert on the backstroke.

To supply the muscles with oxygen, the bird’s heart beats as much as 1,250 beats per minute.

The nerve synapses fire at an incredible rate to make this muscular contraction possible.

The hummingbird consumes twice its body weight in nutrients each day.

During waking hours, the bird eats every 10 to 15 minutes.

A comparable diet for a human would be 150 pounds of food a day.

The hummingbird tongue is about twice as long as its beak.

The tongue acts as an automatic nectar trap (see video clip for demonstration).

The tongue traps nectar in less than 1/20th of a second, thousands of times a day.

Surely these observational facts cry out for an explanation more elegant than, “they evolved.” We respond to these observations, Paul Nelson concludes, like responding to the work of an artist. We doubt that any artist would appreciate having elegant craftsmanship attributed to happenstance.

Yet more on rethinking hell

Time to decanonise higher ed?:Pros and cons.

Yet more on the historical Jesus IV

Yet more on the historical Jesus III

Yet more on the historical Jesus II

Yet more on the historical Jesus.