It's still design all the way down.

Life Exponential: Life Exhibits Intelligent Design at Many Levels
Jonathan Wells

A human cell contains two sets of DNA, each consisting of about three billion subunits called “nucleotides.” There are four different nucleotides, and they can be arranged in many different ways, so DNA is quite complex. Most of our DNA, however, must be arranged in a very specific way to provide the information a cell uses to make RNAs and proteins. Mathematician William Dembski has called this “complex specified information.”1

Complexity (such as we see in a pile of autumn leaves) can arise spontaneously from unguided natural processes, but complex specified information cannot. The only known source of complex specified information is an intelligent mind, which can envision a goal and arrange things to actualize that goal — in this case, a living cell. “Because mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an information-rich system,” philosopher of science Stephen Meyer wrote in 1998, “the specifically arranged nucleotide sequences — the encoded information — in DNA imply the past action of an intelligent mind, even if such mental agency cannot be directly observed.”2

The Need for Spatial Information

So DNA carries biological information, and that information points to design. But DNA is not the only carrier of information in a living cell. When DNA is transcribed into RNAs, most of those RNAs must be transported to specific locations in the cell before they can function properly. Some RNAs are tagged with sequences called “zipcodes” that specify the “addresses” to which they are to be transported. Like the zipcode on a letter you put in a mailbox, however, an RNA zipcode is meaningless unless it corresponds to a pre-existing address. Like the geographical addresses in a postal system, the cellular destinations of RNAs and proteins must be specified independently of their zipcodes, before they are “mailed.”

Many of those destinations are specified by molecules embedded in cell membranes. Scientists originally thought that proteins could diffuse freely in a membrane, like boats floating on the sea. It is now known, however, that many membrane proteins are arranged in non-random patterns that can be quite stable. Such patterns provide the cell with spatial information that goes beyond the information in DNA.

After fertilization, a frog egg is invisibly divided into regions distinguished by (among other things) spatially localized RNAs just inside the cell membrane in a zone called the “cortex.” In the accompanying drawing, four regions are indicated by different colors. After the nucleus duplicates, the fertilized egg divides into two daughter cells. If the plane of division corresponds to A, each daughter cell inherits not only a nucleus but also portions of all four regions of cortical information. If those two cells are then separated, each can develop into a complete frog. But if the plane of division corresponds to B or C, the daughter cells do not inherit a full set of cortical information, and their development is blocked even if they each contain all the necessary DNA.

Illustration: Regions of spatial information in a fertilized frog egg.

Other Carriers of Spatial Information

Regional differences in cells and embryos can be specified in other ways besides localization of RNAs in the cortex. Two of those ways have been studied in great detail: the “sugar code” and the “bioelectric code.” 

Most proteins in living cells — including those in membranes — are chemically bonded to carbohydrates called “glycans” (from the Greek word for “sweet”). The nucleotides in DNA are linked together end-to-end in a linear molecule, so DNA sequence information is one-dimensional. In living cells, the subunits in proteins (with a few exceptions) are also linked in a linear chain. But glycans can be linked together in complex three-dimensional ways, so their information-carrying capacity exceeds that of DNA and proteins by many orders of magnitude.3 

Illustration: Three subunits linked together in DNA (A), a protein (B) and a glycan (C).

The information carried by glycans has been called the “sugar code.”4 The sugar code is “interpreted” by proteins called lectins, which “recognize” specific three-dimensional structures of glycan molecules. Glycans and lectins play an essential role in communication among cells and help to guide cell movements in a developing embryo. Experiments have shown that membrane patterns of glycans change in the course of embryo development.5

In addition to the sugar code, probably all living cells (not just nerve and muscle cells) generate electric fields across their membranes. They do this by pumping charged ions through channels in their membranes, creating a “bioelectric field.” The pattern of membrane channels determines the form of the bioelectric field, and the form of the field changes during embryo development. 

Illustration: Some of the bioelectric fields (shown by arrows) in a developing frog embryo.

Bioelectric fields are correlated with important developmental events. In frog embryos, for example, large ionic currents start flowing out of the sites where the hind limbs will develop long before the limbs actually appear.

Many experiments conducted since the 1980s have confirmed that disrupting bioelectric fields causes disruptions in development. For example, frog embryos normally generate an electric field in the head-to-tail direction. If an artificial field of the same magnitude is applied in the opposite direction, or if ion channels that generate the field are blocked, the result is abnormal head and eye development. The spots where eyes normally form are more highly charged than the surrounding tissue; if the charge is neutralized, the eyes that develop are small or deformed. Sometimes, eyes develop elsewhere on the tadpole’s body, including its tail.5

How do electric fields influence development? In the 1980s, biologists exposed embryonic cells to artificial electric fields of the same strength as ones the cells generate naturally. Some types of cells migrated toward the positive pole, while other types migrated to the negative pole, suggesting that one way bioelectric fields affect embryo development is by directing cell movements.

In 1995, biologists Riyi Shi and Richards Borgens concluded that bioelectric fields “may provide a three dimensional coordinate system” that helps to specify form in embryos.6 In 2013, biologists AiSun Tseng and Michael Levin wrote that such fields may provide “templates of shape,” and that a full understanding of embryo development will probably require cracking the “bioelectric code.”7

The Membrane Code

So localized RNAs in the cortex, glycan patterns on the membrane, and bioelectric fields generated by ion channels in the membrane all carry spatial information. Although individual molecules may be specified by DNA, their three-dimensional patterns are not. Taken together, these patterns constitute a “membrane code” that is independent of DNA sequences.

In 1983, biologist Robert Poyton suggested that biological membranes carry “spatial memory,” the units of which are spatially localized proteins. Poyton wrote: “Realizing that genetic memory is one-dimensional, along a DNA molecule, whereas spatial memory is likely to be two-dimensional, along membrane surfaces, and three-dimensional within the cellular interior, it is probable that spatial memory is more complicated and diverse than genetic memory.”8

In 2004, biologist Thomas Cavalier-Smith wrote that the idea that DNA contains all the information needed to make an organism “is simply false.” According to Cavalier-Smith, membranes provide “chemically specific two-dimensional surfaces with mutually conserved topological relationships in the three spatial dimensions” that play “a key role in the mechanisms that convert the linear information of DNA into the three-dimensional shapes of single cells and multicellular organisms. Animal development creates a complex three-dimensional multicellular organism not by starting from the linear information in DNA… but always starting from an already highly complex three-dimensional unicellular organism, the fertilized egg.”9

So the membrane code carries essential biological information that is independent of DNA sequence information. Yet we often hear that embryo development is directed by a program in DNA. Why?

Beyond DNA

James Watson and Francis Crick’s Nobel Prize-winning discovery of the molecular structure of DNA in 1953 seemed to provide a molecular basis not only for heredity but also for embryo development. Cells replicate their DNA before they divide and (usually) pass on a complete set of their DNA sequences to each of their descendants. Cells then use DNA sequences as templates for the transcription of RNAs, some of which are then translated into proteins.

In the mid 20th century, biology was dominated by neo-Darwinism, a system of thought that combined evolution and genetics and attributed new variations to genetic mutations. An underlying assumption of neo-Darwinism is that evolution and development are due entirely to unguided material processes. After 1953, this materialistic assumption led to the view that “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us,” which has been called the Central Dogma of molecular biology.

In 1970, molecular biologist (and materialist) Jacques Monod said that with the Central Dogma, “and the understanding of the random physical basis of mutation that molecular biology has also provided, the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely founded. And man has to understand that he is a mere accident.”9

But the existence of the membrane code shows that the Central Dogma is false. And the materialistic idea that evolution is unguided cannot account for the complex specified information in DNA, much less for the extensive complex specified information in the membrane code. Just as the information in DNA points to design, so does the information beyond DNA. 

Notes:

1. William A. Dembski, “Intelligent design as a theory of information,” February 20, 1997.
2. Stephen C. Meyer, “DNA by design,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 (1998): 519-556.
3. Roger A. Laine, “A calculation of all possible oligosaccharide isomers both branched and linear yields 1.05 x 1012 structures for a reducing hexasaccharide,” Glycobiology 4 (1994): 759-767.
4. Hans-Joachim Gabius, “Biological information transfer beyond the genetic code: The sugar code,” Naturwissenschaften 87 (2000): 108-121.
5. Jonathan Wells, “Membrane patterns carry ontogenetic information that is specified independently of DNA,” Bio-Complexity 2014 (2): 1-28.
6. Riyi Shi and Richard B. Borgens, “Three-dimensional gradients of voltage during development of the nervous system as invisible coordinates for the establishment of embryonic pattern,” Developmental Dynamics 202 (1995): 101-114.
7. AiSun Tseng and Michael Levin, “Cracking the bioelectric code: Probing endogenous ionic controls of pattern formation,” Communicative and Integrative Biology 6 (2013): e22595
8. Robert O. Poyton, “Memory and membranes: The expression of genetic and spatial memory during the assembly of organelle macrocompartments,” Modern Cell Biology 2 (1983): 15-72.
9. Thomas Cavalier-Smith, “The membranome and membrane heredity in development and evolution,” pp. 335-351 in Robert P. Hirt and David S. Horner (editors), Organelles, Genomes and Eukaryote Phylogeny (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004), 348.
10. Jacques Monod, quoted in Horace Freeland Judson, The Eighth Day of Creation: The Makers of the Revolution in Biology (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979), 217.

Editor’s note: Dr. Wells’s latest book is Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. This article first appeared in Salvo 38. It is published here with the permission of Jonathan Wells.

Russia's reversion to the dark ages continues apace.

Another One of Jehovah’s Witnesses on Trial in Russia on Charges of Extremist Activity

Arkadya Akopyan, a 70-year-old retired tailor and one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, has been on trial for a year on charges of extremist activity. If convicted, he faces a heavy fine or a prison sentence of up to four years.

The prosecution alleges that Mr. Akopyan is guilty of “inciting religious hatred” based on a religious sermon he gave at a local Kingdom Hall where he has regularly attended for many years. In court, the prosecutor relied heavily on the false testimony of six individuals who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses. They claim that Mr. Akopyan made defamatory statements during his sermon and that he gave them “extremist” literature to distribute to others.

Mr. Akopyan and others who know him deny both claims. His lawyer presented evidence in court that the six individuals who made the allegations were nowhere near the building in which they claim Mr. Akopyan made his statements. Further, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not indiscriminately give religious literature to non-Witnesses for them to distribute. Mr. Akopyan’s wife, Sonya, who is not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, informed the court during her cross-examination that she has been happily married for 40 years and that her husband has never forced any of their relatives to become Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Judge Oleg Golovashko ordered an expert study to examine the statements made by Mr. Akopyan during his sermon in order to determine whether he had ‘incited religious hatred.’ At Mr. Akopyan’s most recent hearing, on May 15, 2018, the judge indicated that the expert study should be completed during the month of September 2018 but that he would continue the trial in the meantime. The next hearing is scheduled for June 5, when Mr. Akopyan will be cross-examined. Although he is not in pretrial detention, Mr. Akopyan has been restricted from traveling since his trial began in May 2017 in the Prokhladny District Court.

Gregory Allen, Associate General Counsel for Jehovah’s Witnesses, stated: “Mr. Akopyan is just one more victim of Russia’s gross misapplication of its extremism legislation against Jehovah’s Witnesses. He is an innocent, law-abiding citizen who merely wants to worship God in peace. The government’s misguided targeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses puts every Witness under duress and erodes the diverse social fabric of the country.”

Mr. Akopyan is the second Witness in Russia who is being unjustly prosecuted for “extremist activity.” The criminal trial of Dennis Christensen, a Witness in Oryol, began in February 2018. He has been in pretrial detention for a year and could face up to ten years in prison if convicted. * Another seven Witnesses are in pretrial detention in various regions of Russia but have not been formally indicted.

Bloodless surgery:Still the gold standard.

University of Padua Hosts Landmark Conference to Discuss Advances in Transfusion-Free Medical Care

ROME—On Friday, November 24, 2017, medical, bioethics, and legal professionals convened at the University of Padua, the second-oldest university in Italy, for the conference entitled “The Refusal of Blood Transfusion by Adult Patients: What Are the Treatment Options?—Blood Save 2017.” The conference was sponsored by more than 25 Italian scientific societies and associations as well as Italy’s Ministry of Health.


Dr. Luca P. Weltert

Traditionally, blood transfusions are considered harmless and the only life-saving medical treatment option for patients undergoing complex medical or surgical procedures. This assumption was challenged by many of the conference speakers. One of the visiting experts, Dr. Luca P. Weltert, a cardiothoracic surgeon at the European Hospital, Rome, explained: “We saw today that transfusions can be detrimental and in many cases are not needed.”

Dr. Weltert and other clinicians on the program reached this conclusion based on their clinical experience as well as evidence from scientific studies that establish a correlation between blood transfusions and increased mortality, morbidity, length of hospital stay, and other serious health risks for transfusion recipients. *

“We saw today that transfusions can be detrimental and in many cases are not needed.”—Dr. Luca Weltert, cardiothoracic surgeon, European Hospital, Rome

Such scientific evidence, along with the high cost of blood transfusions, moved the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2010 to identify the need for patient blood management (PBM)—a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach that focuses on health and patient safety, improves clinical outcomes, and significantly reduces the use of blood transfusions. The WHO issued a resolution that urged all 193 member states of the United Nations to implement PBM strategies.


Professor Stefania Vaglio

Professor Stefania Vaglio, chief of transfusion medicine at the Sant’Andrea University Hospital, Rome, discussed at length the new culture of PBM, stating that formerly, medical care was dependent on handling and administering donor blood, but now “the focus has been completely switched from donor blood to a patient’s own blood.” One of the objectives of PBM is “to minimize blood loss by putting the patient at the center of the process, . . . focusing attention and doing all that is necessary in order to preserve the patient’s blood.” Professor Vaglio also clarified that medical techniques to conserve a patient’s own blood “actually mean better quality treatment.”

Dr. Tommaso Campagnaro, a general surgeon at the Verona University Hospital, confirmed the benefits of using strategies to avoid blood transfusions. After completing an analysis of data going back as far as the late 1990s involving patients undergoing the most complex abdominal surgical procedure, he concluded: “The patients who did not receive transfusions had less complications and a lower mortality rate compared to transfused patients.”

“The patients who did not receive transfusions had less complications and a lower mortality rate compared to transfused patients.”—Dr. Tommaso Campagnaro, general surgeon, Verona University Hospital


Associate Professor Anna Aprile

Dr. Campagnaro, along with several other conference speakers, publicly thanked Jehovah’s Witnesses for helping to prompt doctors to develop alternatives to blood transfusions. Anna Aprile, associate professor of medical law at the University of Padua, stated: “We thank Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have raised the issue of the right to refuse transfusions, helping everyone to reflect on this issue and to meet the challenge of using less blood.”

“We thank Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have raised the issue of the right to refuse transfusions . . .”—Anna Aprile, associate professor of medical law, University of Padua

The conference speakers represented diverse medical specialties, such as anesthesiology, cardiology, gynecology, hematology, oncology, and orthopedics. However, the overwhelming message was the same: the medical establishment, lawmakers, and the general public should all be open to PBM strategies in light of the growing body of published data and experiences from experts in the field.


Attendees at the Morgagni lecture hall at the University of Padua listen to one of the presentations.

Dr. Weltert adds: “Aortic dissection repair in contemporary surgical therapy represents the biggest surgery that you can do on a human body. . . . If [this] can be carried out without blood, then really anything can be done.”

Highlights From the Conference


Dr. Tommaso Campagnaro

General surgeon, Verona University Hospital

“Patients who receive blood transfusions are sure to face more complications and problems, as the scientific literature and the statistics indicate. A higher number of blood transfusions correlates with more complications and deaths. So, the association between transfusion and mortality is a reality.”

“In reality, the experience with Witness patients has influenced the treatment methods for all our patients. It has allowed us to make great improvements, and we thank them for that, because as you’ve seen, we’ve been able to reduce significantly the use of blood for all our patients.”


Professor Pia Di Benedetto

Chief of Anesthesiology, Sant’Andrea University Hospital, Rome

“My anesthesiology colleague, Professor Paolo Grossi—who is present today—and I have shared the same view of bloodless surgery for the past 25 years. We both have cooperated with orthopedic surgeons, who were probably the first to agree on our approach to bloodless surgery. . . . So, having worked with them for many years, bloodless surgery has become a reality, a reality that we finally see is beginning to be accepted by everyone.”

Professor Alfredo Guglielmi

Professor of General Surgery, Verona University Hospital

“We have been treating Jehovah’s Witness patients for about 30 years. It has been a very important incentive for us to solve the problems associated with blood transfusions, and not only in relation to Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

Dr. Samuel Mancuso

Conference chairman; cardiac surgeon, University of Turin, Maria Pia Hospital

“The number of patients that refuse blood transfusions for clinical and medical reasons is increasing. Why? It is not only out of concern for transfusion risks but because of the notion that bloodless medicine is better medicine. If I, as a patient, refuse a blood transfusion, I will receive better care, caregivers will prepare me well in advance, everything will be done in a meticulous way, and I will bleed less. If I lose a lot of blood during surgery, doctors will give my blood back to me, and I am guaranteed that they will follow a very strict protocol. Therefore, it is not only Jehovah’s Witness patients who are requesting this kind of [transfusion-free] procedure.”

Dr. Sergio Fucci

Magistrate; former Counselor, Milan Appellate Court; Honorary Chairman, Court of Cassation, Milan

“Medicine should first of all be oriented toward respect for the person and his dignity. . . . I think one of the worst violations of someone’s dignity is not listening to what the person says. It is like denying one the status of being a human.”

Media Contacts:

International: David A. Semonian, Office of Public Information, +1-845-524-3000


Italy: Christian Di Blasio, +39-06-872941

The OOL continues to troll design deniers.

More on Alien Octopi: New Paper Admits Failure of Evolution to Explain Life
Cornelius Hunter

There are many fundamental problems with evolutionary theory. Origin-of-life studies have dramatically failed. Incredibly complex biological designs, both morphological and molecular, arose abruptly with far too little time to have evolved. The concept of punctuated equilibrium is descriptive, not explanatory. The Cambrian explosion is not explained by evolution and, in general, evolutionary mechanisms are inadequate to explain the emergence of new traits, body plans, and new physiologies. Even a single gene is beyond the reach of evolutionary mechanisms.

In fact, the complexity and sophistication of life cannot originate from non-biological matter under any scenario, over any expanse of space and time, however vast. On the other hand, the archenemy of evolutionary theory, Lamarckian inheritance, in its variety of forms, is well established.

As noted here already  (“With New Theory of the Cambrian Explosion, Scientists Reach (Literally) for the Stars”), these scientific observations are laid out in a new peer-reviewed, scientific paper arguing for panspermia.

Origin of Life

Regarding origin-of-life studies, which try to explain how living cells could somehow have arisen in an ancient, inorganic, Earth, the paper explains that this idea should have long since been rejected, but instead it has fueled “sophisticated conjectures with little or no evidential support.”

…the dominant biological paradigm — abiogenesis in a primordial soup. The latter idea was developed at a time when the earliest living cells were considered to be exceedingly simple structures that could subsequently evolve in a Darwinian way. These ideas should of course have been critically examined and rejected after the discovery of the exceedingly complex molecular structures involved in proteins and in DNA. But this did not happen. Modern ideas of abiogenesis in hydrothermal vents or elsewhere on the primitive Earth have developed into sophisticated conjectures with little or no evidential support. 

In fact, abiogenesis has “no empirical support.”

…independent abiogenesis on the cosmologically diminutive scale of oceans, lakes or hydrothermal vents remains a hypothesis with no empirical support…

One problem, of many, is that the early Earth would not have supported such monumental evolution:

The conditions that would most likely to have prevailed near the impact-riddled Earth’s surface 4.1–4.23 billion years ago were too hot even for simple organic molecules to survive let alone evolve into living complexity

In fact, the whole idea strains credibility “beyond the limit.”

The requirement now, on the basis of orthodox abiogenic thinking, is that an essentially instantaneous transformation of non-living organic matter to bacterial life occurs, an assumption we consider strains credibility of Earth-bound abiogenesis beyond the limit.

All laboratory experiments have ended in “dismal failure.” The information hurdle is of “superastronomical proportions” and simply could not have been overcome without a miracle.

The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions, an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle. All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure.

Diversity of Life

But the origin of life is just the beginning of evolution’s problems. For science now suggests evolution is incapable of creating the diversity of life and all of its designs:

Before the extensive sequencing of DNA became available it would have been reasonable to speculate that random copying errors in a gene sequence could, over time, lead to the emergence of new traits, body plans and new physiologies that could explain the whole of evolution. However the data we have reviewed here challenge this point of view. It suggests that the Cambrian Explosion of multicellular life that occurred 0.54 billion years ago led to a sudden emergence of essentially all the genes that subsequently came to be rearranged into an exceedingly wide range of multi-celled life forms — Tardigrades, the Squid, Octopus, fruit flies, humans — to name but a few.

As one of the authors writes, “the complexity and sophistication of life cannot originate (from non-biological) matter under any scenario, over any expanse of space and time, however vast.” As an example, consider the octopus.

Octopus

First, the octopus is an example of novel, complex features, rapidly appearing and a vast array of genes without an apparent ancestry:

Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch colour and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene. The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g., Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form.

But it gets worse. As I have explained, the cephalopods demonstrate a unique level of adenosine to inosine mRNA editing. It is yet another striking example of lineage-specific design that utterly contradicts macroevolution:

These data demonstrate extensive evolutionary conserved adenosine to inosine (A-to-I) mRNA editing sites in almost every single protein-coding gene in the behaviorally complex coleoid Cephalopods (Octopus in particular), but not in nautilus. This enormous qualitative difference in Cephalopod protein recoding A-to-I mRNA editing compared to nautilus and other invertebrate and vertebrate animals is striking. Thus in transcriptome-wide screens only 1–3% of Drosophila and human protein coding mRNAs harbour an A-to-I recoding site; and there only about 25 human mRNA messages which contain a conserved A-to-I recoding site across mammals. In Drosophila lineages there are about 65 conserved A-sites in protein coding genes and only a few identified in C. elegans which support the hypothesis that A-to-I RNA editing recoding is mostly either neutral, detrimental, or rarely adaptive. Yet in Squid and particularly Octopus it is the norm, with almost every protein coding gene having an evolutionary conserved A-to-I mRNA editing site isoform, resulting in a nonsynonymous amino acid change. This is a virtual qualitative jump in molecular genetic strategy in a supposed smooth and incremental evolutionary lineage — a type of sudden “great leap forward”. Unless all the new genes expressed in the squid/octopus lineages arose from simple mutations of existing genes in either the squid or in other organisms sharing the same habitat, there is surely no way by which this large qualitative transition in A-to-I mRNA editing can be explained by conventional neo-Darwinian processes, even if horizontal gene transfer is allowed.

Lamarck

In the 20th century, Lamarckian inheritance was anathema for evolutionists. Careers were ruined and every evolutionist knew the inheritance of acquired characteristics sat right alongside the flat earth and geocentrism in the history of ideas. The damning of Lamarck, however, was driven by dogma rather than data, and today the evidence has finally overcome evolutionary theory.

Indeed there is much contemporary discussion, observations and critical analysis consistent with this position led by Corrado Spadafora, Yongsheng Liu, Denis Noble, John Mattick and others, that developments such as Lamarckian Inheritance processes (both direct DNA modifications and indirect, viz. epigenetic, transmissions) in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields now necessitate a complete revision of the standard neo-Darwinian theory of evolution or “New Synthesis ” that emerged from the 1930s and 1940s.

Indeed, we now know of a “plethora of adaptive Lamarckian-like inheritance mechanisms.”

There is, of course, nothing new in this paper. We have discussed these, and many, many other refutations of evolutionary theory. Yet the paper is significant because it appears in a peer-reviewed journal. Science is, if anything, conservative. It doesn’t exactly “follow the data,” at least until it becomes OK to do so. There are careers and reputations at stake.

Yet another own goal?

Alleged Refutation of the Cambrian Explosion Confirms Abruptness, Vindicates Meyer
Günter Bechly

The top-down pattern of appearance of animal phyla during the Cambrian explosion represents major conflicting evidence for Darwinian evolution. Since this is so, there have been numerous attempts in the past to explain away the inconvenient truth and fudge the facts to fit the theory, rather than try to find the best explanation for the pattern of evidence in nature.

Such futile attempts include the claim that the Cambrian explosion was a much longer event, that the sudden appearance is just an artifact of Linnaean classification while cladistic classification makes the problem disappear, that Ediacaran organisms such as Kimberella and Spriggina or Ediacaran trace fossils and small shelly fossils represent putative ancestors of the Cambrian phyla. And of course there is the usual appeal to the incompleteness of the fossil record (aka the artifact hypothesis). All these dubious claims, including those made by staunch ID-critics like Nick Matzke, P.Z. Myers, and Donald Prothero, rather than by actual specialists on Cambrian fossils, have all been addressed and refuted before (e.g., see Meyer 2013, Klinghoffer 2015, and Bechly 2018 ).

New Paper from Allison C. Daley

Now, a new paper by Daley et al. (2018), with an accompanying press release from the University of Oxford (2018), is said to challenge the abruptness of the Cambrian explosion. The paper allegedly settles the case in favor of a more gradual pattern of appearance as predicted by Darwin’s theory. That would be big news indeed, if it were true. Darwinists bloggers are thrilled 

To judge from the hype, you might expect that the authors of the new paper have discovered a well-dated temporal transitional series of fossils, documenting a gradual evolution stretched out over a long period of time, rather than an explosive event. Well, far from that. Actually, the article presents no new fossil evidence, no new phylogenetic studies, nor any new scientific results at all. Instead, it is just a review of other recent work. This is why it was published in the “Perspectives” section of the journal PNAS.

The press release announces, “[N]ew research from the University of Oxford in collaboration with the University of Lausanne suggests that for most animals this ‘explosion’ was in fact a more gradual process.” This is already a highly misleading statement, as the paper only deals with euarthropods and not any other group of animals. At most it could prove a more gradual origin of euarthropods, thus of a single lineage within a single one of the 28 animal phyla. But does it even achieve this limited goal? They continue with the claim, “A team based at Oxford University Museum of Natural History and the University of Lausanne carried out the most comprehensive analysis ever made of early fossil euarthropods from every different possible type of fossil preservation.” This is factually incorrect. What the new study achieves is nothing new at all: based on other cladistic studies, they ordered the fossils according to their inferred sequence of branching from the euarthropod stem line, irrespective of their temporal ordering, and thereby identify a supposed order of character acquisition. 

This has been done before multiple times by other studies on early arthropod phylogeny by eminent paleontologists like Graham Budd, Gregory Edgecombe, and David Legg. The alleged new result is not evidence at all, but rather high level interpretation of evidence based on several unquestioned background assumptions such as universal common ancestry and the principle of parsimony. It is by no means the “most comprehensive analysis” of its kind (e.g., compared to  Legg et al. 2013, who studied 309 panarthropod taxa and 753 morphological characters). The authors also fail to discuss any incongruent evidence, such as the strange fact that lobopodians like Hallucigenia, which are believed to be more basal stem arthropods, do have legs, while radiodonts like Anomalocaris, which are believed to be more advanced stem arthropods, lack any postcephalic legs.

A Welcome Confirmation

Claims from the Darwinist peanut gallery notwithstanding, nothing genuinely new is to be found in the paper. Nevertheless, this publication is still very interesting for other reasons.

Instead of refuting the abruptness of the Cambrian explosion, Daley et al. (2018) confirm that the fossil record of euarthropods is even more abrupt than often believed. How so? Because the oldest body fossils from crown group arthropods like trilobites indeed predate (!) their alleged ancestors by about three million years. The authors recognize that this is a problem. They admit, “It may seem counter-intuitive that crown group euarthropods appear at 521 Ma, while the first appearance of stem lineage euarthropods is not until 518 Ma.” To solve this temporal paradox the authors have to postulate a ghost lineage of stem euarthropods that predate the oldest fossil trilobites but left no record of body fossils. Such hypothetical ghost lineages are required by the unquestioned assumption of universal common descent. Surprisingly, they also appeal to the artifact hypothesis (“… stem lineage euarthropods lack biomineralized exoskeletons and require preservation of soft tissues …”) even though they themselves show in their work that the Burgess-Shale-type (BST) conditions for soft tissue preservation existed all the way down to the Ediacaran period. 

Trying to evaluate the length of the ghost lineage, the authors write: “However, stem lineage euarthropods would have evolved before trilobites, even if they are not preserved, so the real question is how much earlier than 521 Ma did they appear? The answer comes from the trace fossil record.” The problem is that according to the writers, the oldest unequivocal arthropod trace fossils are again made by euarthropod trilobites (537-million-year-old Rusophycus traces) and thus not by stem euarthropods. They admit, “In contrast, Rusophycus … provides definitive evidence of crown group Euarthropoda … This makes Rusophycus the oldest euarthropod trace globally … During the Ediacaran period, euarthropod trace fossils are ‘strikingly absent.’” Consequently, the trace fossil record documents an even earlier presence of euarthropods, long before the morphologically more primitive lobopodian and radiodont fossils, implying even longer ghost lineages for stem euarthropods that conflict with the actual fossil record.

Triple Vindication for Meyer

There is more. Even though Daley et al. (2018) do not bother to mention Darwin’s Doubt,they vindicate three main theses of Stephen Meyer’s book.

First, the authors confirm Stephen Meyer’s refutation of the artifact hypothesis and my own argument from the absence of animals in recently discovered Burgess-Shale-type fossil localities from the Ediacaran period (Bechly 2018). As they clearly affirm in the Abstract

A deep Precambrian root to the euarthropod evolutionary lineage is disproven by a comparison of Ediacaran and Cambrian lagerstätten. BSTs from the latest Ediacaran Period (e.g., Miaohe biota, 550 Ma) are abundantly fossiliferous with algae but completely lack animals, which are also missing from other Ediacaran windows, such as phosphate deposits (e.g., Doushantuo, 560 Ma).

In the article they elaborate: 

Modes of Fossil Preservation Are Comparable in the Cambrian and Precambrian … Hypotheses that regard Precambrian preservation as insufficient to preserve euarthropods can no longer be sustained, given the abundant lagerstätten from the Ediacaran Period. Similarly, claims that euarthropods evolved as a tiny and soft-bodied meiofauna that escaped preservation cannot be substantiated because of how commonly the phosphate window is found in the Ediacaran and lower Cambrian, with microscopic euarthropods not appearing until 514 Ma.

The news item from the University of Oxford makes the point even more clearly: 

“The idea that arthropods are missing from the Precambrian fossil record because of biases in how fossils are preserved can now be rejected,” says Dr. Greg Edgecombe FRS from the Natural History Museum, London, who was not involved in the study. “The authors make a very compelling case that the late Precambrian and Cambrian are in fact very similar in terms of how fossils preserve. There is really just one plausible explanation — arthropods hadn’t yet evolved.”

Second, the authors mention that “Spriggina, for example, does not possess bilateral symmetry, but instead has a marked offset along the midline, and this alone is sufficient to reject a euarthropod affinity … No euarthropod claim from the Ediacaran biota can therefore be substantiated.” Thus, Daley et al. clearly reject any arthropod affinity of Ediacaran organisms such as Spriggina, also because of their non-bilaterian glide symmetry. Guess who made exactly this point before? Yes, it was Stephen Meyer (2013) in Darwin’s Doubt.

A Very Acute Waiting Time Problem

Finally, the paper by Daley et al. confirms that the Cambrian explosion implies a very acute waiting time problem, again as elaborated by Meyer (2013). Based on their postulated ghost lineages and on molecular clock data, the authors suggest that euarthropods originated about 541 million years ago. They conclude, “Rather than being a sudden event, this diversification unfolded gradually over the ∼40 million years of the lower to middle Cambrian, with no evidence of a deep Precambrian history.” However, this conclusion is totally speculative and an artifact of their methodological assumptions. It is not based on actual fossil evidence (see above). The latter indeed suggests that the euarthropod body plan appeared with trilobites in the Lower Cambrian, as if out of thin air without any known precursors and without any fossil evidence for a gradual step-wise generation of this body plan. 

Far from being a refutation of the abruptness of the Cambrian explosion, this study actually confirms it and makes the abruptness of the event even more acute. Here is why: since the authors refute the existence of stem group arthropods in the Ediacaran period before 550 million years, and euarthropods are documented already for the Lower Cambrian at 537 million years, there remains a window of time of only 13 million years to evolve the stem arthropod body plan from unknown ecdysozoan worm-like ancestors and to make the transition from lobododian pro-arthropods to the fully developed euarthropod body plan, with exoskeleton, articulated legs, compound eyes, etc. Since the average longevity of a single marine invertebrate species is about 5-10 million years (Levinton 2001: 384, table 7.2), this available window of time equals only about two successive species. Considering the implied enormous re-engineering involved, this time is much too short to accommodate the waiting times for the necessary genetic changes to occur and spread according to the laws of population genetics.

Literature:

• Bechly G 2018. “A Paleontologist on Why the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ Label Persists.” ID the Future April 23, 2018.
• Daley AC, Antcliffe JB, Drage HB, Pates S 2018. “Early fossil record of Euarthropoda and the Cambrian Explosion.” PNAS, 9 pp.
• Klinghoffer D 2015. Debating Darwin’s Doubt: A Scientific Controversy That Can No Longer Be Denied. Discovery Institute Press, 350 pp.
• Legg DA, Sutton MD, Edgecombe GD 2013. “Arthropod fossil data increase congruence of morphological and molecular phylogenies.” Nature Communications 4, 2485.
• Levinton JS 2001. Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution. Cambridge University Press, 617 pp. (Google Books).
• Meyer SC 2013. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. HarperOne, 512 pp.
• University of Oxford 2018. “Major fossil study sheds new light on emergence of early animal life 540 million years ago.” EurekAlert! 21-May-2018; Phys.org May 21, 2018.

On the apostle(s):The Watchtower society's commentary.

APOSTLE

The Greek word a·poʹsto·los is derived from the common verb a·po·stelʹlo, meaning simply “send forth (or off).” (Mt 10:5; Mr 11:3) Its basic sense is clearly illustrated in Jesus’ statement: “A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth [a·poʹsto·los] greater than the one that sent him.” (Joh 13:16) In this sense the word also applies to Christ Jesus as “the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” (Heb 3:1; compare Mt 10:40; 15:24; Lu 4:18, 43; 9:48; 10:16; Joh 3:17; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21-25; 20:21.) Jesus was sent forth by God as his appointed and commissioned representative.

The term is principally applied, however, to those disciples whom Jesus personally selected as a body of 12 appointed representatives. The names of the original 12 selected are given at Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19, and Luke 6:13-16. One of the original 12, Judas Iscariot, proved to be a traitor, thereby fulfilling earlier prophecies. (Ps 41:9; 109:8) The remaining 11 faithful apostles are again listed at Acts 1:13.

Some of the apostles had been disciples of John the Baptizer before becoming Jesus’ disciples. (Joh 1:35-42) Eleven of them were evidently Galileans (Ac 2:7), Judas Iscariot being considered the sole Judean. They were from the working class; four were definitely fishermen by trade; one had been a tax collector. (Mt 4:18-21; 9:9-13) At least two of them appear to have been cousins of Jesus (James and John, the sons of Zebedee). They were men who were viewed by the religious leaders as “unlettered and ordinary,” indicating that their education was elementary and not from the schools of higher learning. A number of them, including Peter (Cephas), were married men.​—Ac 4:13; 1Co 9:5.

Of the 12, Peter, James, and John seem to have enjoyed the closest relationship with Jesus. They alone witnessed the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (Mr 5:35-43) and the transfiguration of Jesus (Mt 17:1, 2), and they accompanied him farther into the garden of Gethsemane than the other apostles on the night of his arrest. (Mr 14:32, 33) A special affinity appears to have existed between Jesus and John, and John is accepted as being the one referred to as “the disciple whom Jesus used to love.”​—Joh 21:20-24; 13:23.

Selection and Early Ministry. The 12 were selected out of a larger group of disciples and were designated “apostles” by Jesus, “that they might continue with him and that he might send them out [a·po·stelʹlei] to preach and to have authority to expel the demons.” (Mr 3:13-15) Thereafter they did “continue with him” in very close association during the remainder of his earthly ministry, receiving extensive personal instruction and ministerial training. (Mt 10:1-42; Lu 8:1) Since they continued to be Jesus’ pupils, they were still called “disciples,” particularly in accounts of events prior to Pentecost. (Mt 11:1; 14:26; 20:17; Joh 20:2) Thereafter they are consistently called “apostles.” At the time of their appointment, Jesus gave them miraculous powers to heal, as well as to expel demons, and they used these powers to some extent during Jesus’ ministry. (Mr 3:14, 15; 6:13; Mt 10:1-8; Lu 9:6; compare Mt 17:16.) This activity, however, is shown to be always subordinate to their principal work of preaching. Though forming an inner circle of followers, their instruction and training included no mysterious rituals or ceremonies.

Human Weaknesses. Though greatly favored as apostles of God’s Son, they manifested normal human failings and weaknesses. Peter was inclined to be rash and impetuous (Mt 16:22, 23; Joh 21:7, 8); Thomas was slow to be convinced (Joh 20:24, 25); James and John manifested youthful impatience (Lu 9:49, 54). They quarreled over the issue of their future greatness in the earthly kingdom that they expected Jesus to establish. (Mt 20:20-28; Mr 10:35-45; compare Ac 1:6; Lu 24:21.) They acknowledged their need for greater faith. (Lu 17:5; compare Mt 17:20.) Despite their years of intimate association with Jesus and though knowing him to be the Messiah, they all abandoned him at the time of his arrest (Mt 26:56); the matter of his burial was handled by others. The apostles were slow at first to accept the testimony of the women who first saw Jesus after his resurrection. (Lu 24:10, 11) Because of fear they met behind locked doors. (Joh 20:19, 26) The resurrected Jesus gave them further enlightenment, and following his ascension to heaven on the 40th day from his resurrection, they manifested great joy and “were continually in the temple blessing God.”​—Lu 24:44-53.

Activity in Christian Congregation. The outpouring of God’s spirit upon them at Pentecost greatly strengthened the apostles. The first five chapters of the Acts of Apostles testify to the great fearlessness of the apostles and their boldness in declaring the good news and the resurrection of Jesus in spite of jailing, beatings, and threats of death from their rulers. During those early days after Pentecost, the dynamic leadership of the apostles, under the power of the holy spirit, resulted in amazing expansion in the Christian congregation. (Ac 2:41; 4:4) Their ministry was at first concentrated in Jerusalem, then extended to Samaria, and in time, throughout the known world.​—Ac 5:42; 6:7; 8:5-17, 25; 1:8.

Their primary function as apostles was to be witnesses as to Jesus’ fulfillment of Jehovah God’s purposes and prophecies, particularly of his resurrection and exaltation, and to do a discipling work among all nations; and this commission was emphasized to them by Jesus just before his ascension to heaven. (Mt 28:19, 20; Ac 1:8, 22; 2:32-36; 3:15-26) Their testimony concerning the resurrection was that of eyewitnesses.​—Ac 13:30-34.

Miraculous powers. Additionally, to fortify their testimony, the apostles continued to exercise the miraculous powers previously granted them by Jesus, and also other gifts of the spirit received from Pentecost forward. (Ac 5:12; 9:36-40; see GIFTS FROM GOD [Gifts of the Spirit].) While others, too, received such miraculous gifts of the spirit, the account shows that such was the case only when one or more of the apostles were present, or by the laying on of the hands of the apostles. Paul, though not one of the 12, also served in this way as an apostle personally appointed by Jesus Christ. (Ac 2:1, 4, 14; 8:14-18; 10:44; 19:6) Thus the power to transmit such gifts was unique with these apostles. Such miraculous gifts would therefore pass away with the passing away of these apostles and of those who had received these gifts through the apostles (1Co 13:2, 8-11), and thus we read that these powers were “missing in the 2nd-century church, the writers of those days speaking of them as a thing in the past​—in the apostolic age, in fact.”​—The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, 1980, Vol. 1, p. 79.

Administrative position. In the formation, organization, and subsequent direction of the Christian congregation, the apostles occupied a primary position. (1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11) Although they were joined by others of the “older men” in such supervision, they formed a principal part of the governing body of the expanding Christian congregation, and this body was recognized by the early Christians everywhere as the channel of communication used by God to render decisions and direct the affairs of the congregation throughout the earth. (Ac 2:42; 8:14-17; 11:22; 15:1, 2, 6-31; 16:4, 5) This was possible for these men only because of the fulfillment of the promises about guidance by God’s holy spirit. (Joh 15:26, 27) Such help enabled them to recall Jesus’ instructions and teachings, to clarify points of doctrine, and to be progressively guided “into all the truth” revealed through them at that apostolic period. (Joh 14:26; 16:13-15; compare Joh 2:22; 12:16.) They made appointments to positions of service within the congregation and also designated areas in which certain ones would engage in missionary activity.​—Ac 6:2, 3; Ga 2:8, 9.

The apostles, therefore, served as a foundation, resting on Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone, for the building up of the “holy temple for Jehovah.” (Eph 2:20-22; 1Pe 2:4-6) There is no evidence of the primacy of any one apostle in the established Christian congregation. (See PETER.) Peter and John appear to have been especially prominent at Pentecost and immediately thereafter, with Peter acting as the principal spokesman. (Ac 2:14, 37, 38; 3:1, 4, 11; 4:1, 13, 19; 5:3, 8, 15, 29) However, in the decisions made at that time neither of these appears to have had a superiority over the others of the governing body, and when news arrived of the baptisms taking place in Samaria, the apostles in Jerusalem “dispatched [a·peʹstei·lan] Peter and John to them,” so that these two served, in effect, as apostles of the apostles. (Ac 6:2-6; 8:14, 15) Following the death of the apostle James, the disciple of the same name, James the half brother of Jesus, appears to have presided in the governing body. Paul speaks of this James and also Peter (Cephas) and John as “the ones who seemed to be pillars.” (Ac 12:1, 2, 16, 17; Ga 1:18, 19; 2:9, 11-14) It was James who announced the final decision on the important issue of circumcision as involving the Gentile believers, at which meeting Peter and Paul both presented testimony.​—Ac 15:1, 2, 6-21.

Who replaced Judas Iscariot as a twelfth apostle?

Because of the defection of Judas Iscariot, who died unfaithful, there were only 11 apostles remaining, and during the 40 days from Jesus’ resurrection until his ascension to heaven he made no appointment of a replacement. Sometime during the ten days between Jesus’ ascension and the day of Pentecost it was viewed as necessary that another be selected to fill the vacancy left by Judas, not simply on the basis of his death but, rather, on the basis of his wicked defection, as the Scriptures quoted by Peter indicate. (Ac 1:15-22; Ps 69:25; 109:8; compare Re 3:11.) Thus, by contrast, when the faithful apostle James was put to death, there is no record of any concern to appoint anyone to succeed him in his position of apostle.​—Ac 12:2.

It is evident from Peter’s statements that it was then considered that any individual filling the position of an apostle of Jesus Christ must have the qualifications of having been personally conversant with him, having been an eyewitness of his works, his miracles, and particularly his resurrection. In view of this it can be seen that any apostolic succession would in course of time become an impossibility, unless there were divine action to supply these requirements in each individual case. At that particular time before Pentecost, however, there were men meeting these requirements, and two were put forth as suitable for replacing unfaithful Judas. Doubtless having in mind Proverbs 16:33, lots were cast, and Matthias was selected and was thereafter “reckoned along with the eleven apostles.” (Ac 1:23-26) He is thus included among “the twelve” who settled the problem concerning the Greek-speaking disciples (Ac 6:1, 2), and evidently Paul includes him in referring to “the twelve” when speaking of Jesus’ postresurrection appearances at 1 Corinthians 15:4-8. Thus, when Pentecost arrived, there were 12 apostolic foundations on which the spiritual Israel then formed could rest.

Congregational Apostleships. Matthias was not a mere apostle of the Jerusalem congregation, any more than the remaining 11 apostles were. His case is different from that of the Levite Joseph Barnabas who became an apostle of the congregation of Antioch, Syria. (Ac 13:1-4; 14:4, 14; 1Co 9:4-6) Other men also are referred to as “apostles of congregations” in the sense that they were sent forth by such congregations to represent them. (2Co 8:23) And, in writing to the Philippians, Paul speaks of Epaphroditus as “your envoy [a·poʹsto·lon] and private servant for my need.” (Php 2:25) The apostleship of these men was clearly not by virtue of any apostolic succession, nor did they form part of “the twelve” as did Matthias.

The correct understanding of the wider application of the term “apostle” can help to clear away any apparent discrepancy between Acts 9:26, 27 and Galatians 1:17-19, when applied to the same occasion. The first account states that Paul, on arriving in Jerusalem, was led “to the apostles” by Barnabas. In the account in Galatians, however, Paul states that he visited with Peter and adds: “But I saw no one else of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” James (not the original apostle James the son of Zebedee nor James the son of Alphaeus, but the half brother of Jesus) was evidently viewed as an “apostle” in the wider sense, namely, as “one sent forth” by the Jerusalem congregation. This would allow for the Acts account to use the title in the plural in saying that Paul was led “to the apostles” (that is, Peter and James).​—Compare 1Co 15:5-7; Ga 2:9.

The Selection of Paul. Probably about the year 34 C.E., Saul of Tarsus was converted and is later referred to as Paul. He did become a true apostle of Jesus Christ and was the direct choice of the resurrected and ascended Jesus Christ. (Ac 9:1-22; 22:6-21; 26:12-23; 13:9) He argued on behalf of his apostleship and presented as his qualification the fact that he had seen the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, that he had performed miracles, and that he had served as a channel for imparting the holy spirit to baptized believers. (1Co 9:1, 2; 15:9, 10; 2Co 12:12; 2Ti 1:1, 11; Ro 1:1; 11:13; Ac 19:5, 6) Since the apostle James (the brother of John) was not killed until about the year 44 C.E., “the twelve” were yet alive at the time of Paul’s becoming an apostle. He nowhere includes himself among such “twelve,” while at the same time he acknowledges no inferiority in his apostleship compared with that of such ones.​—Ga 2:6-9.

Matthias’ and Paul’s apostleships were both valid for the purpose for which those men were “sent forth,” yet when the apostle John saw the vision of the heavenly New Jerusalem in the Revelation (given about 96 C.E.) he saw only 12 foundation stones and on them inscribed “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Re 21:14) The testimony of the Holy Scriptures is clear that the apostle Paul was never referred to as one of “the twelve.” Therefore, it logically follows that one of “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” inscribed on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem is that of Matthias and not that of Paul. This means that the vision of the apostle John reflects the situation that existed at the start of the Christian congregation on the day of Pentecost in the year 33 C.E.​—See PAUL.

End of the Apostolic Period. Though the Bible does not relate the death of the 12 apostles, aside from that of James, the evidence available indicates that they maintained their faithfulness until death and therefore needed no replacement. Concerning history in the following centuries, the observation is made that “whenever it [the term “apostle”] is applied to individuals in later Christian literature, the use of the term is metaphorical. The church has never had apostles in the N[ew] T[estament] sense since the first century.”​—The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 1, p. 172.

During their lifetime the apostles’ presence served as a restraint upon the influences of apostasy, holding back the forces of false worship within the Christian congregation. It is evidently to this “restraint” that the apostle Paul referred at 2 Thessalonians 2:7: “True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way.” (Compare Mt 13:24, 25; Ac 20:29, 30.) This apostolic influence, including the authority and powers unique with them, continued until the death of John about 100 C.E. (1Jo 2:26; 3Jo 9, 10) The rapid influx of apostasy and false doctrine and practices after the death of the apostles shows that any pretended apostolic successors had none of the restraining influence of the apostles.

The reference to Andronicus and Junias at Romans 16:7 as “men of note among the apostles” indicates, not that they were apostles, but, rather, that they were held in high repute by the apostles. That some made false pretenses of being “apostles of Christ” is shown at 2 Corinthians 11:5, 13; 12:11, 12; Revelation 2:2.