Search This Blog

Sunday, 23 October 2022

Hagia Sophia: a brief history.

 Hagia Sophia 

Hagia Sophia (lit. 'Holy Wisdom'; Ancient Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία, romanized: Hagía Sophía; Latin: Sancta Sapientia; Turkish: Ayasofya), officially the Hagia Sophia Grand Mosque (Turkish: Ayasofya-i Kebir Cami-i Şerifi),[3] is a mosque and major cultural and historical site in Istanbul, Turkey. The cathedral was a Greek Orthodox church from 360 AD until the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire in 1453. It served as a mosque until 1935, when it became a museum. In 2020, the site once again became a mosque. 

Originally built by the eastern Roman emperor Justinian I as the Christian cathedral of Constantinople for the state church of the Roman Empire between 532 and 537, and designed by the Greek geometers Isidore of Miletus and Anthemius of Tralles,[4] it was formally called the Church of the Holy Wisdom (Greek: Ναὸς τῆς Ἁγίας τοῦ Θεοῦ Σοφίας, romanized: Naòs tês Hagías toû Theoû Sophías)[5] and was then the world's largest interior space and among the first to employ a fully pendentive dome. It is considered the epitome of Byzantine architecture[6] and is said to have "changed the history of architecture".[7] The present Justinianic building was the third church of the same name to occupy the site, as the prior one had been destroyed in the Nika riots. As the episcopal see of the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, it remained the world's largest cathedral for nearly a thousand years, until Seville Cathedral was completed in 1520. Beginning with subsequent Byzantine architecture, Hagia Sophia became the paradigmatic Orthodox church form, and its architectural style was emulated by Ottoman mosques a thousand years later.[8] It has been described as "holding a unique position in the Christian world"[8] and as an architectural and cultural icon of Byzantine and Eastern Orthodox civilization.[9][10][8]


The religious and spiritual centre of the Eastern Orthodox Church for nearly one thousand years, the church was dedicated to the Holy Wisdom.[11][12][13] It was where the excommunication of Patriarch Michael I Cerularius was officially delivered by Humbert of Silva Candida, the envoy of Pope Leo IX in 1054, an act considered the start of the East–West Schism. In 1204, it was converted during the Fourth Crusade into a Catholic cathedral under the Latin Empire, before being returned to the Eastern Orthodox Church upon the restoration of the Byzantine Empire in 1261. The doge of Venice who led the Fourth Crusade and the 1204 Sack of Constantinople, Enrico Dandolo, was buried in the church.


After the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453,[14] it was converted to a mosque by Mehmed the Conqueror and became the principal mosque of Istanbul until the 1616 construction of the Sultan Ahmed Mosque.[15][16] Upon its conversion, the bells, altar, iconostasis, ambo, and baptistery were removed, while iconography, such as the mosaic depictions of Jesus, Mary, Christian saints and angels were removed or plastered over.[17] Islamic architectural additions included four minarets, a minbar and a mihrab. The Byzantine architecture of the Hagia Sophia served as inspiration for many other religious buildings including the Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki, Panagia Ekatontapiliani, the Şehzade Mosque, the Süleymaniye Mosque, the Rüstem Pasha Mosque and the Kılıç Ali Pasha Complex. The patriarchate moved to the Church of the Holy Apostles, which became the city's cathedral.


The complex remained a mosque until 1931, when it was closed to the public for four years. It was re-opened in 1935 as a museum under the secular Republic of Turkey,[18] and the building is Turkey's most visited tourist attraction as of 2019.[19][20][21] In July 2020, the Council of State annulled the 1934 decision to establish the museum, and the Hagia Sophia was reclassified as a mosque.[22][23][24] The 1934 decree was ruled to be unlawful under both Ottoman and Turkish law as Hagia Sophia's waqf, endowed by Sultan Mehmed, had designated the site a mosque; proponents of the decision argued the Hagia Sophia was the personal property of the sultan.[25][26] This redesignation drew condemnation from the Turkish opposition, UNESCO, the World Council of Churches, the International Association of Byzantine Studies, and many international leaders.[27][28][29][30][31] 

Church of Constantius II 

Excavations on the western side of the site of the first church under the propylaeum wall reveal that the first church was built atop a road about 8 metres (26 ft) wide.[40] According to early accounts, the first Hagia Sophia was built on the site of an ancient pagan temple,[41][42][43] although there are no artefacts to confirm this.[44]


The Patriarch of Constantinople John Chrysostom came into a conflict with Empress Aelia Eudoxia, wife of the emperor Arcadius (r. 383–408), and was sent into exile on 20 June 404. During the subsequent riots, this first church was largely burnt down.[34] Palladius noted that the 4th-century skeuophylakion survived the fire.[45] According to Dark and Kostenec, the fire may only have affected the main basilica, leaving the surrounding ancillary buildings intact.[45] 

Church of Theodosius II 

also remain; unlike Justinian's 6th-century church, the Theodosian Hagia Sophia had both colourful floor mosaics and external decorative sculpture.[45]


At the western end, surviving stone fragments of the structure show there was vaulting, at least at the western end.[45] The Theodosian building had a monumental propylaeum hall with a portico that may account for this vaulting, which was thought by the original excavators in the 1930s to be part of the western entrance of the church itself.[45] The propylaeum opened onto an atrium which lay in front of the basilica church itself. Preceding the propylaeum was a steep monumental staircase following the contours of the ground as it sloped away westwards in the direction of the Strategion, the Basilica, and the harbours of the Golden Horn.[45] This arrangement would have resembled the steps outside the atrium of the Constantinian Old St Peter's Basilica in Rome.[45] Near the staircase, there was a cistern, perhaps to supply a fountain in the atrium or for worshippers to wash with before entering.[45]


The 4th-century skeuophylakion was replaced in the 5th century by the present-day structure, a rotunda constructed of banded masonry in the lower two levels and of plain brick masonry in the third.[45] Originally this rotunda, probably employed as a treasury for liturgical objects, had a second-floor internal gallery accessed by an external spiral staircase and two levels of niches for storage.[45] A further row of windows with marble window frames on the third level remain bricked up.[45] The gallery was supported on monumental consoles with carved acanthus designs, similar to those used on the late 5th-century Column of Leo.[45] A large lintel of the skeuophylakion's western entrance – bricked up during the Ottoman era – was discovered inside the rotunda when it was archaeologically cleared to its foundations in 1979, during which time the brickwork was also repointed.[45] The skeuophylakion was again restored in 2014 by the Vakıflar.[45]


A fire started during the tumult of the Nika Revolt, which had begun nearby in the Hippodrome of Constantinople, and the second Hagia Sophia was burnt to the ground on 13–14 January 532. The court historian Procopius wrote:[53]


And by way of shewing that it was not against the Emperor alone that they [the rioters] had taken up arms, but no less against God himself, unholy wretches that they were, they had the hardihood to fire the Church of the Christians, which the people of Byzantium call "Sophia", an epithet which they have most appropriately invented for God, by which they call His temple; and God permitted them to accomplish this impiety, foreseeing into what an object of beauty this shrine was destined to be transformed. So the whole church at that time lay a charred mass of ruins.


— Procopius, De aedificiis, I.1.21–22 

Milion and the Regia, the first stretch of Constantinople's main thoroughfare, the Mese. Also facing the Augustaeum were the enormous Constantinian thermae, the Baths of Zeuxippus, and the Justinianic civic basilica under which was the vast cistern known as the Basilica Cistern. On the opposite side of Hagia Sophia was the former cathedral, Hagia Irene.


Referring to the destruction of the Theodosian Hagia Sophia and comparing the new church with the old, Procopius lauded the Justinianic building, writing in De aedificiis:[53]


... the Emperor Justinian built not long afterwards a church so finely shaped, that if anyone had enquired of the Christians before the burning if it would be their wish that the church should be destroyed and one like this should take its place, shewing them some sort of model of the building we now see, it seems to me that they would have prayed that they might see their church destroyed forthwith, in order that the building might be converted into its present form.


— Procopius, De aedificiis, I.1.22–23 

Justinian and Patriarch Menas inaugurated the new basilica on 27 December 537, 5 years and 10 months after construction started, with much pomp.[65][66][67] Hagia Sophia was the seat of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and a principal setting for Byzantine imperial ceremonies, such as coronations. The basilica offered sanctuary from persecution to criminals, although there was disagreement about whether Justinian had intended for murderers to be eligible for asylum.[68] 

Earthquakes in August 553 and on 14 December 557 caused cracks in the main dome and eastern semi-dome. According to the Chronicle of John Malalas, during a subsequent earthquake on 7 May 558,[69] the eastern semi-dome collapsed, destroying the ambon, altar, and ciborium. The collapse was due mainly to the excessive bearing load and to the enormous shear load of the dome, which was too flat.[65] These caused the deformation of the piers which sustained the dome.[65] Justinian ordered an immediate restoration. He entrusted it to Isidorus the Younger, nephew of Isidore of Miletus, who used lighter materials. The entire vault had to be taken down and rebuilt 20 Byzantine feet (6.25 meters or 20.5 feet) higher than before, giving the building its current interior height of 55.6 meters (182 ft).[70] Moreover, Isidorus changed the dome type, erecting a ribbed dome with pendentives whose diameter was between 32.7 and 33.5 m.[65] Under Justinian's orders, eight Corinthian columns were disassembled from Baalbek, Lebanon and shipped to Constantinople around 560.[71] This reconstruction, which gave the church its present 6th-century form, was completed in 562. The poet Paul the Silentiary composed an ekphrasis, or long visual poem, for the re-dedication of the basilica presided over by Patriarch Eutychius on 23 December 562. Paul the Silentiary's poem is conventionally known under the Latin title Descriptio Sanctae Sophiae, and he was also author of another ekphrasis on the ambon of the church, the Descripto Ambonis.[72][73]


According to the history of the patriarch Nicephorus I and the chronicler Theophanes the Confessor, various liturgical vessels of the cathedral were melted down on the order of the emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641) after the capture of Alexandria and Roman Egypt by the Sasanian Empire during the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628.[74] Theophanes states that these were made into gold and silver coins, and a tribute was paid to the Avars.[74] The Avars attacked the extramural areas of Constantinople in 623, causing the Byzantines to move the "garment" relic (Greek: ἐσθής, translit. esthḗs) of Mary, mother of Jesus to Hagia Sophia from its usual shrine of the Church of the Theotokos at Blachernae just outside the Theodosian Walls.[75] On 14 May 626, the Scholae Palatinae, an elite body of soldiers, protested in Hagia Sophia against a planned increase in bread prices, after a stoppage of the Cura Annonae rations resulting from the loss of the grain supply from Egypt.[76] The Persians under Shahrbaraz and the Avars together laid the siege of Constantinople in 626; according to the Chronicon Paschale, on 2 August 626, Theodore Syncellus, a deacon and presbyter of Hagia Sophia, was among those who negotiated unsuccessfully with the khagan of the Avars.[77] A homily, attributed by existing manuscripts to Theodore Syncellus and possibly delivered on the anniversary of the event, describes the translation of the Virgin's garment and its ceremonial re-translation to Blachernae by the patriarch Sergius I after the threat had passed.[77][78] Another eyewitness account of the Avar–Persian siege was written by George of Pisidia, a deacon of Hagia Sophia and an administrative official in for the patriarchate from Antioch in Pisidia.[77] Both George and Theodore, likely members of Sergius's literary circle, attribute the defeat of the Avars to the intervention of the Theotokos, a belief that strengthened in following centuries.[77] 

In 726, the emperor Leo the Isaurian issued a series of edicts against the veneration of images, ordering the army to destroy all icons – ushering in the period of Byzantine iconoclasm. At that time, all religious pictures and statues were removed from the Hagia Sophia. Following a brief hiatus during the reign of Empress Irene (797–802), the iconoclasts returned. Emperor Theophilus (r. 829–842) had two-winged bronze doors with his monograms installed at the southern entrance of the church.[79]


The basilica suffered damage, first in a great fire in 859, and again in an earthquake on 8 January 869 that caused the collapse of one of the half-domes.[80] Emperor Basil I ordered repair of the tympanas, arches, and vaults.[81]


In his book De caerimoniis aulae Byzantinae ("Book of Ceremonies"), the emperor Constantine VII (r. 913–959) wrote a detailed account of the ceremonies held in the Hagia Sophia by the emperor and the patriarch.


In the 940s or 950s, probably around 954 or 955, after the Rus'–Byzantine War of 941 and the death of the Grand Prince of Kiev, Igor I (r. 912–945), his widow Olga of Kiev – regent for her infant son Sviatoslav I (r. 945–972) – visited the emperor Constantine VII and was received as queen of the Rus' in Constantinople.[82][83][84] She was probably baptized in Hagia Sophia's baptistery, taking the name of the reigning augusta, Helena Lecapena, and receiving the titles zōstē patrikía and the styles of archontissa and hegemon of the Rus'.[83][82] Her baptism was an important step towards the Christianization of the Kievan Rus', though the emperor's treatment of her visit in De caerimoniis does not mention baptism.[83][82] Olga is deemed a saint and equal-to-the-apostles (Greek: ἰσαπόστολος, translit. isapóstolos) in the Eastern Orthodox Church.[85][86] According to an early 14th-century source, the second church in Kiev, Saint Sophia's, was founded in anno mundi 6460 in the Byzantine calendar, or c. 952 CE.[87] The name of this future cathedral of Kiev probably commemorates Olga's baptism at Hagia Sophia.[87]


After the great earthquake of 25 October 989, which collapsed the western dome arch, Emperor Basil II asked for the Armenian architect Trdat, creator of the Cathedral of Ani, to direct the repairs.[88] He erected again and reinforced the fallen dome arch, and rebuilt the west side of the dome with 15 dome ribs.[89] The extent of the damage required six years of repair and reconstruction; the church was re-opened on 13 May 994. At the end of the reconstruction, the church's decorations were renovated, including the addition of four immense paintings of cherubs; a new depiction of Christ on the dome; a burial cloth of Christ shown on Fridays, and on the apse a new depiction of the Virgin Mary holding Jesus, between the apostles Peter and Paul.[90] On the great side arches were painted the prophets and the teachers of the church.[90] 

According to the 13th-century Greek historian Niketas Choniates, the emperor John II Comnenus celebrated a revived Roman triumph after his victory over the Danishmendids at the siege of Kastamon in 1133.[91] After proceeding through the streets on foot carrying a cross with a silver quadriga bearing the icon of the Virgin Mary, the emperor participated in a ceremony at the cathedral before entering the imperial palace.[92] In 1168, another triumph was held by the emperor Manuel I Comnenus, again preceding with a gilded silver quadriga bearing the icon of the Virgin from the now-demolished East Gate (or Gate of St Barbara, later the Turkish: Top Kapısı, lit. 'Cannon Gate') in the Propontis Wall, to Hagia Sophia for a thanks-giving service, and then to the imperial palace.[93]


In 1181, the daughter of the emperor Manuel I, Maria Comnena, and her husband, the caesar Renier of Montferrat, fled to Hagia Sophia at the culmination of their dispute with the empress Maria of Antioch, regent for her son, the emperor Alexius II Comnenus.[94] Maria Comnena and Renier occupied the cathedral with the support of the patriarch, refusing the imperial administration's demands for a peaceful departure.[94] According to Niketas Choniates, they "transformed the sacred courtyard into a military camp", garrisoned the entrances to the complex with locals and mercenaries, and despite the strong opposition of the patriarch, made the "house of prayer into a den of thieves or a well-fortified and precipitous stronghold, impregnable to assault", while "all the dwellings adjacent to Hagia Sophia and adjoining the Augusteion were demolished by [Maria's] men".[94] A battle ensued in the Augustaion and around the Milion, during which the defenders fought from the "gallery of the Catechumeneia (also called the Makron)" facing the Augusteion, from which they eventually retreated and took up positions in the exonarthex of Hagia Sophia itself.[94] At this point, "the patriarch was anxious lest the enemy troops enter the temple, with unholy feet trample the holy floor, and with hands defiled and dripping with blood still warm plunder the all-holy dedicatory offerings".[94] After a successful sally by Renier and his knights, Maria requested a truce, the imperial assault ceased, and an amnesty was negotiated by the megas doux Andronikos Kontostephanos and the megas hetaireiarches John Doukas.[94] Greek historian Niketas Choniates compared the preservation of the cathedral to the efforts made by the 1st-century emperor Titus to avoid the destruction of the Second Temple during the siege of Jerusalem in the First Jewish–Roman War.[94] Choniates reports that in 1182, a white hawk wearing jesses was seen to fly from the east to Hagia Sophia, flying three times from the "building of the Thōmaitēs" (a basilica erected on the southeastern side of the Augustaion) to the Palace of the Kathisma in the Great Palace, where new emperors were acclaimed.[95] This was supposed to presage the end of the reign of Andronicus I Comnenus (r. 1183–1185).[95] 

According to the Greek historian Doukas, the Hagia Sophia was tainted by these Catholic associations, and the anti-union Orthodox faithful avoided the cathedral, considering it to be a haunt of demons and a "Hellenic" temple of Roman paganism.[104] Doukas also notes that after the Laetentur Caeli was proclaimed, the Byzantines dispersed discontentedly to nearby venues where they drank toasts to the Hodegetria icon, which had, according to late Byzantine tradition, interceded to save them in the former sieges of Constantinople by the Avar Khaganate and the Umayyad Caliphate.[105]


According to Nestor Iskander's Tale on the Taking of Tsargrad, the Hagia Sophia was the focus of an alarming omen interpreted as the Holy Spirit abandoning Constantinople on 21 May 1453, in the final days of the Siege of Constantinople.[106] The sky lit up, illuminating the city, and "many people gathered and saw on the Church of the Wisdom, at the top of the window, a large flame of fire issuing forth. It encircled the entire neck of the church for a long time. The flame gathered into one; its flame altered, and there was an indescribable light. At once it took to the sky. ... The light itself has gone up to heaven; the gates of heaven were opened; the light was received; and again they were closed."[106] This phenomenon was perhaps St Elmo's fire induced by gunpowder smoke and unusual weather.[106] The author relates that the fall of the city to "Mohammadenism" was foretold in an omen seen by Constantine the Great – an eagle fighting with a snake – which also signified that "in the end Christianity will overpower Mohammedanism, will receive the Seven Hills, and will be enthroned in it".[106]


The eventual fall of Constantinople had long been predicted in apocalyptic literature.[107] A reference to the destruction of a city founded on seven hills in the Book of Revelation was frequently understood to be about Constantinople, and the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius had predicted an "Ishmaelite" conquest of the Roman Empire.[107] In this text, the Muslim armies reach the Forum Bovis before being turned back by divine intervention; in later apocalyptic texts, the climactic turn takes place at the Column of Theodosius closer to Hagia Sophia; in others, it occurs at the Column of Constantine, which is closer still.[107] Hagia Sophia is mentioned in a hagiography of uncertain date detailing the life of the fictional saint Andrew the Fool.[108] The text is self-attributed to Nicephorus, a priest of Hagia Sophia, and contains a description of the end time in the form of a dialogue, in which the interlocutor, upon being told by the saint that Constantinople will be sunk in a flood and that "the waters as they gush forth will irresistibly deluge her and cover her and surrender her to the terrifying and immense sea of the abyss", says "some people say that the Great Church of God will not be submerged with the city but will be suspended in the air by an invisible power".[108] The reply is given that "When the whole city sinks into the sea, how can the Great Church remain? Who will need her? Do you think God dwells in temples made with hands?"[108] The Column of Constantine, however, is prophesied to endure.[108] 

and the east and would be driven as far as the borders of Persia, to a place called the Lone Tree …. That was the cause for the flight into the Great Church. In one hour that famous and enormous church was filled with men and women. An innumerable crowd was everywhere: upstairs, downstairs, in the courtyards, and in every conceivable place. They closed the gates and stood there, hoping for salvation.


— Doukas, XXXIX.18 

In accordance with the traditional custom of the time, Sultan Mehmed II allowed his troops and his entourage three full days of unbridled pillage and looting in the city shortly after it was captured. This period saw the destruction of many Orthodox churches;[111] Hagia Sophia itself was looted as the invaders believed it to contain the greatest treasures of the city.[112] Shortly after the defence of the Walls of Constantinople collapsed and the victorious Ottoman troops entered the city, the pillagers and looters made their way to the Hagia Sophia and battered down its doors before storming inside.[113] Once the three days passed, Mehmed was to claim the city's remaining contents for himself.[114][115] However, by the end of the first day, he proclaimed that the looting should cease as he felt profound sadness when he toured the looted and enslaved city.[116][114][117]


Throughout the siege of Constantinople, the trapped people of the city participated in the Divine Liturgy and the Prayer of the Hours at the Hagia Sophia, and the church was a safe-haven and a refuge for many of those who were unable to contribute to the city's defence, including women, children, elderly, the sick and the wounded.[118][119][117] As they were trapped in the church, the many congregants and other refugees inside became spoils-of-war to be divided amongst the triumphant invaders. The building was desecrated and looted, and those who sought shelter within the church were enslaved.[112] While most of the elderly and the infirm, injured, and sick were killed, the remainder (mainly teenage males and young boys) were chained and sold into slavery.[113][117] 

Mosque (1453–1935) 

Constantinople fell to the attacking Ottoman forces on 29 May 1453. Sultan Mehmed II entered the city and performed the Friday prayer and khutbah (sermon) in Hagia Sophia, and this action marked the official conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque.[120] The church's priests and religious personnel continued to perform Christian rites, prayers, and ceremonies until they were compelled to stop by the invaders.[113] When Mehmed and his entourage entered the church, he ordered that it be converted into a mosque immediately. One of the ʿulamāʾ (Islamic scholars) present climbed onto the church's ambo and recited the shahada ("There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his messenger"), thus marking the beginning of the conversion of the church into a mosque.[17][121] Mehmed is reported to have taken a sword to a soldier who tried to pry up one of the paving slabs of the Proconnesian marble floor.[122] 

As described by Western visitors before 1453, such as the Córdoban nobleman Pero Tafur[123] and the Florentine geographer Cristoforo Buondelmonti,[124] the church was in a dilapidated state, with several of its doors fallen from their hinges. Mehmed II ordered a renovation of the building. Mehmed attended the first Friday prayer in the mosque on 1 June 1453.[125] Aya Sofya became the first imperial mosque of Istanbul.[126] Most of the existing houses in the city and the area of the future Topkapı Palace were endowed to the corresponding waqf.[17] From 1478, 2,360 shops, 1,300 houses, 4 caravanserais, 30 boza shops, and 23 shops of sheep heads and trotters gave their income to the foundation.[127] Through the imperial charters of 1520 (AH 926) and 1547 (AH 954), shops and parts of the Grand Bazaar and other markets were added to the foundation.[17]


Before 1481, a small minaret was erected on the southwest corner of the building, above the stair tower.[17] Mehmed's successor Bayezid II (r. 1481–1512) later built another minaret at the northeast corner.[17] One of the minarets collapsed after the earthquake of 1509,[17] and around the middle of the 16th century they were both replaced by two diagonally opposite minarets built at the east and west corners of the edifice.[17] In 1498, Bernardo Bonsignori was the last Western visitor to Hagia Sophia to report seeing the ancient Justinianic floor; shortly afterwards the floor was covered over with carpet and not seen again until the 19th century.[122]


In the 16th century, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (r. 1520–1566) brought two colossal candlesticks from his conquest of the Kingdom of Hungary and placed them on either side of the mihrab. During Suleiman's reign, the mosaics above the narthex and imperial gates depicting Jesus, Mary, and various Byzantine emperors were covered by whitewash and plaster, which were removed in 1930 under the Turkish Republic.[128] 

During the reign of Selim II (r. 1566–1574), the building started showing signs of fatigue and was extensively strengthened with the addition of structural supports to its exterior by Ottoman architect Mimar Sinan, who was also an earthquake engineer.[129] In addition to strengthening the historic Byzantine structure, Sinan built two additional large minarets at the western end of the building, the original sultan's lodge and the türbe (mausoleum) of Selim II to the southeast of the building in 1576–1577 (AH 984). In order to do that, parts of the Patriarchate at the south corner of the building were pulled down the previous year.[17] Moreover, the golden crescent was mounted on the top of the dome,[17] and a respect zone 35 arşın (about 24 m) wide was imposed around the building, leading to the demolition of all houses within the perimeter.[17] The türbe became the location of the tombs of 43 Ottoman princes.[17] Murad III (r. 1574–1595) imported two large alabaster Hellenistic urns from Pergamon (Bergama) and placed them on two sides of the nave.[17]


In 1594 (AH 1004) Mimar (court architect) Davud Ağa built the türbe of Murad III, where the Sultan and his valide, Safiye Sultan were buried.[17] The octagonal mausoleum of their son Mehmed III (r. 1595–1603) and his valide was built next to it in 1608 (AH 1017) by royal architect Dalgiç Mehmet Aĝa.[130] His son Mustafa I (r. 1617–1618, 1622–1623) converted the baptistery into his türbe.[130]


In 1717, under the reign of Sultan Ahmed III (r. 1703–1730), the crumbling plaster of the interior was renovated, contributing indirectly to the preservation of many mosaics, which otherwise would have been destroyed by mosque workers.[130] In fact, it was usual for the mosaic's tesserae—believed to be talismans—to be sold to visitors.[130] Sultan Mahmud I ordered the restoration of the building in 1739 and added a medrese (a Koranic school, subsequently the library of the museum), an imaret (soup kitchen for distribution to the poor) and a library, and in 1740 he added a Şadirvan (fountain for ritual ablutions), thus transforming it into a külliye, or social complex. At the same time, a new sultan's lodge and a new mihrab were built inside. 

The 19th-century restoration of the Hagia Sophia was ordered by Sultan Abdulmejid I (r. 1823–1861) and completed between 1847 and 1849 by eight hundred workers under the supervision of the Swiss-Italian architect brothers Gaspare and Giuseppe Fossati. The brothers consolidated the dome with a restraining iron chain and strengthened the vaults, straightened the columns, and revised the decoration of the exterior and the interior of the building.[131] The mosaics in the upper gallery were exposed and cleaned, although many were recovered "for protection against further damage".[132]


Eight new gigantic circular-framed discs or medallions were hung from the cornice, on each of the four piers and at either side of the apse and the west doors. These were designed by the calligrapher Kazasker Mustafa Izzet Efendi (1801–1877) and painted with the names of Allah, Muhammad, the Rashidun (the first four caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali), and the two grandsons of Muhammad: Hasan and Husayn, the sons of Ali. The old chandeliers were replaced by new pendant ones.[citation needed]


In 1850, the architects Fossati built a new maqsura or caliphal loge in Neo-Byzantine columns and an Ottoman–Rococo style marble grille connecting to the royal pavilion behind the mosque.[131] The new maqsura was built at the extreme east end of the northern aisle, next to the north-eastern pier. The existing maqsura in the apse, near the mihrab, was demolished.[131] A new entrance was constructed for the sultan: the Hünkar Mahfili.[131] The Fossati brothers also renovated the minbar and mihrab.


Outside the main building, the minarets were repaired and altered so that they were of equal height.[132] A clock building, the Muvakkithane, was built by the Fossatis for use by the muwaqqit (the mosque timekeeper), and a new madrasa (Islamic school) was constructed. The Kasr-ı Hümayun was also built under their direction.[131] When the restoration was finished, the mosque was re-opened with a ceremony on 13 July 1849.[133] An edition of lithographs from drawings made during the Fossatis' work on Hagia Sophia was published in London in 1852, entitled: Aya Sophia of Constantinople as Recently Restored by Order of H.M. The Sultan Abdulmedjid.[131] 

In 1919, the Greek Orthodox Christian military priest Eleftherios Noufrakis performed the first Divine Liturgy in the Hagia Sophia since the 1453 fall of Constantinople.[134] 

, the first Turkish President and founder of the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, transformed the building into a museum. The carpet and the layer of mortar underneath were removed and marble floor decorations such as the omphalion appeared for the first time since the Fossatis' restoration,[135] when the white plaster covering many of the mosaics had been removed. Due to neglect, the condition of the structure continued to deteriorate, prompting the World Monuments Fund (WMF) to include the Hagia Sophia in their 1996, and 1998 Watch Lists. During this time period, the building's copper roof had cracked, causing water to leak down over the fragile frescoes and mosaics. Moisture entered from below as well. Rising ground water increased the level of humidity within the monument, creating an unstable environment for stone and paint. The WMF secured a series of grants from 1997 to 2002 for the restoration of the dome. The first stage of work involved the structural stabilization and repair of the cracked roof, which was undertaken with the participation of the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism. The second phase, the preservation of the dome's interior, afforded the opportunity to employ and train young Turkish conservators in the care of mosaics. By 2006, the WMF project was complete, though many areas of Hagia Sophia continue to require significant stability improvement, restoration, and conservation.[136]


In 2014, Hagia Sophia was the second most visited museum in Turkey, attracting almost 3.3 million visitors annually.[137] 

While use of the complex as a place of worship (mosque or church) was strictly prohibited,[138] in 1991 the Turkish government allowed the allocation of a pavilion in the museum complex (Ayasofya Müzesi Hünkar Kasrı) for use as a prayer room, and, since 2013, two of the museum's minarets had been used for voicing the call to prayer (the ezan) regularly.[139][140]


From the early 2010s, several campaigns and government high officials, notably Turkey's deputy prime minister Bülent Arınç in November 2013, demanded the Hagia Sophia be converted back into a mosque.[141][142][143] In 2015, Pope Francis publicly acknowledged the Armenian genocide, which is officially denied in Turkey. In response, the mufti of Ankara, Mefail Hızlı, said he believed the Pope's remarks would accelerate the conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque.[144]


On 1 July 2016, Muslim prayers were held again in the Hagia Sophia for the first time in 85 years.[145] That November, a Turkish NGO, the Association for the Protection of Historic Monuments and the Environment, filed a lawsuit for converting the museum into a mosque.[146] The court decided it should stay as a 'monument museum'.[147][better source needed] In October 2016, Turkey's Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) appointed, for the first time in 81 years, a designated imam, Önder Soy, to the Hagia Sophia mosque (Ayasofya Camii Hünkar Kasrı), located at the Hünkar Kasrı, a pavilion for the sultans' private ablutions. Since then, the adhan has been regularly called out from the Hagia Sophia's all four minarets five times a day.[139][140][148]


On 13 May 2017, a large group of people, organized by the Anatolia Youth Association (AGD), gathered in front of Hagia Sophia and prayed the morning prayer with a call for the re-conversion of the museum into a mosque.[149] On 21 June 2017 the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) organized a special programme, broadcast live by state-run television TRT, which included the recitation of the Quran and prayers in Hagia Sophia, to mark the Laylat al-Qadr.[150] 

Reversion to mosque (2018–present) 

Since 2018, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had spoken of reverting the status of the Hagia Sophia back to a mosque, a move seen to be very popularly accepted by the religious populace whom Erdoğan is attempting to persuade.[151] On 31 March 2018 Erdoğan recited the first verse of the Quran in the Hagia Sophia, dedicating the prayer to the "souls of all who left us this work as inheritance, especially Istanbul's conqueror," strengthening the political movement to make the Hagia Sophia a mosque once again, which would reverse Atatürk's measure of turning the Hagia Sophia into a secular museum.[152] In March 2019 Erdoğan said that he would change the status of Hagia Sophia from a museum to a mosque,[153] adding that it had been a "very big mistake" to turn it into a museum.[154] As a UNESCO World Heritage site, this change would require approval from UNESCO's World Heritage Committee.[155] In late 2019 Erdoğan's office took over the administration and upkeep of the nearby Topkapı Palace Museum, transferring responsibility for the site from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism by presidential decree.[156][157][158]


In 2020, Turkey's government celebrated the 567th anniversary of the Conquest of Constantinople with an Islamic prayer in Hagia Sophia. Erdoğan said during a televised broadcast "Al-Fath surah will be recited and prayers will be done at Hagia Sophia as part of conquest festival".[159] In May, during the anniversary events, passages from the Quran were read in the Hagia Sophia. Greece condemned this action, while Turkey in response accused Greece of making "futile and ineffective statements".[160] In June, the head of Turkey's Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) said that "we would be very happy to open Hagia Sophia for worship" and that if it happened "we will provide our religious services as we do in all our mosques”.[146] On 25 June, John Haldon, president of the International Association of Byzantine Studies, wrote an open letter to Erdoğan asking that he "consider the value of keeping the Aya Sofya as a museum".[31] 

On 10 July 2020, the decision of the Council of Ministers to transform the Hagia Sophia into a museum was annulled by the Council of State, decreeing that Hagia Sophia cannot be used "for any other purpose" than being a mosque and that the Hagia Sophia was property of the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Han Foundation. The council reasoned Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II, who conquered Istanbul, deemed the property to be used by the public as a mosque without any fees and was not within the jurisdiction of the Parliament or a ministry council.[161][162] Despite secular and global criticism, Erdoğan signed a decree annulling the Hagia Sophia's museum status, reverting it to a mosque.[163][164] The call to prayer was broadcast from the minarets shortly after the announcement of the change and rebroadcast by major Turkish news networks.[164] The Hagia Sophia Museum's social media channels were taken down the same day, with Erdoğan announcing at a press conference that prayers themselves would be held there from 24 July.[164] A presidential spokesperson said it would become a working mosque, open to anyone similar to the Parisian churches Sacré-Cœur and Notre-Dame. The spokesperson also said that the change would not affect the status of the Hagia Sophia as a UNESCO World Heritage site, and that "Christian icons" within it would continue to be protected.[151] Earlier the same day, before the final decision, the Turkish Finance and Treasury Minister Berat Albayrak and the Justice Minister Abdulhamit Gül expressed their expectations of opening the Hagia Sophia to worship for Muslims.[165][166] Mustafa Şentop, Speaker of Turkey's Grand National Assembly, said "a longing in the heart of our nation has ended".[165] A presidential spokesperson claimed that all political parties in Turkey supported Erdoğan's decision;[167] however, the Peoples' Democratic Party had previously released a statement denouncing the decision, saying "decisions on human heritage cannot be made on the basis of political games played by the government".[168] The mayor of Istanbul, Ekrem İmamoğlu, said that he supports the conversion "as long as it benefits Turkey", adding that he felt that Hagia Sophia has been a mosque since 1453.[169] Ali Babacan attacked the policy of his former ally Erdoğan, saying the Hagia Sophia issue "has come to the agenda now only to cover up other problems".[170] Orhan Pamuk, Turkish novelist and Nobel laureate, publicly denounced the move, saying "Kemal Atatürk changed... Hagia Sophia from a mosque to a museum, honouring all previous Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic history, making it as a sign of Turkish modern secularism".[164][171] 

UNESCO's Assistant Director-General for Culture said "It is important to avoid any implementing measure, without prior discussion with UNESCO, that would affect physical access to the site, the structure of the buildings, the site's moveable property, or the site's management".[27] UNESCO's statement of 10 July said "these concerns were shared with the Republic of Turkey in several letters, and again yesterday evening with the representative of the Turkish Delegation" without a response.[27]


The World Council of Churches, which claims to represent 500 million Christians of 350 denominations, condemned the decision to convert the building into a mosque, saying that would "inevitably create uncertainties, suspicions and mistrust"; the World Council of Churches urged Turkey's president Erdoğan "to reconsider and reverse" his decision "in the interests of promoting mutual understanding, respect, dialogue and cooperation, and avoiding cultivating old animosities and divisions".[181][28][182] At the recitation of the Sunday Angelus prayer at St Peter's Square on 12 July Pope Francis said, "My thoughts go to Istanbul. I think of Santa Sophia and I am very pained" (Italian: Penso a Santa Sofia, a Istanbul, e sono molto addolorato).[note 1][184][29] The International Association of Byzantine Studies announced that its 21st International Congress, due to be held in Istanbul in 2021, will no longer be held there and is postponed to 2022.[31] 

people of Turkey but the entire Muslim world".[198] The Muslim Judicial Council group in South Africa praised the move, calling it "a historic turning point".[199] In Nouakchott, capital of Mauritania, there were prayers and celebrations topped by the sacrifice of a camel.[200] On the other hand, Shawki Allam, grand mufti of Egypt, ruled that conversion of the Hagia Sophia to a mosque is "impermissible".[201]

When President Erdoğan announced that the first Muslim prayers would be held inside the building on 24 July, he added that "like all our mosques, the doors of Hagia Sophia will be wide open to locals and foreigners, Muslims and non-Muslims." Presidential spokesman İbrahim Kalın said that the icons and mosaics of the building would be preserved, and that "in regards to the arguments of secularism, religious tolerance and coexistence, there are more than four hundred churches and synagogues open in Turkey today."[202] Ömer Çelik, spokesman for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), announced on 13 July that entry to Hagia Sophia would be free of charge and open to all visitors outside prayer times, during which Christian imagery in the building's mosaics would be covered by curtains or lasers.[189] In response to the criticisms of Pope Francis, Çelik said that the papacy was responsible for the greatest disrespect done to the site, during the 13th-century Latin Catholic Fourth Crusade's sack of Constantinople and the Latin Empire, during which the cathedral was pillaged.[189] The Turkish foreign minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, told TRT Haber on 13 July that the government was surprised at the reaction of UNESCO, saying that "We have to protect our ancestors’ heritage. The function can be this way or that way – it does not matter".[203]


On 14 July the prime minister of Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, said his government was "considering its response at all levels" to what he called Turkey's "unnecessary, petty initiative", and that "with this backward action, Turkey is opting to sever links with western world and its values".[204] In relation to both Hagia Sophia and the Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute, Mitsotakis called for European sanctions against Turkey, referring to it as "a regional troublemaker, and which is evolving into a threat to the stability of the whole south-east Mediterranean region".[204] Dora Bakoyannis, Greek former foreign minister, said Turkey's actions had "crossed the Rubicon", distancing itself from the West.[205] On the day of the building's re-opening, Mitsotakis called the re-conversion evidence of Turkey's weakness rather than a show of power.[171]


Armenia's Foreign Ministry expressed "deep concern" about the move, adding that it brought to a close Hagia Sophia's symbolism of "cooperation and unity of humankind instead of clash of civilizations."[206] Catholicos Karekin II, the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, said the move "violat[ed] the rights of national religious minorities in Turkey"[207] Sahak II Mashalian, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, perceived as loyal to the Turkish government, endorsed the decision to convert the museum into a mosque. He said, "I believe that believers’ praying suits better the spirit of the temple instead of curious tourists running around to take pictures."[208]


In July 2021, UNESCO asked for an updated report on the state of conservation and expressed "grave concern". There were also some concerns about the future of its World Heritage status.[209] Turkey responded that the changes had "no negative impact" on UNESCO standards and the criticism is "biased and political".[210








Saturday, 22 October 2022

The opium wars: a brief history

 Opium Wars: 

The Opium Wars (simplified Chinese: 鸦片战争; traditional Chinese: 鴉片戰爭) were two conflicts waged between China and Western powers during the mid-19th century. The First Opium War was fought from 1839 to 1842 between China and the United Kingdom, and was triggered by the Chinese government's campaign to enforce its prohibition against opium trafficking by British merchants. The Second Opium War was waged by Britain and France against China from 1856 to 1860. In each war, the superior military advantages enjoyed by European forces led to several easy victories over the Chinese military, with the consequence that China was compelled to sign unequal treaties to grant favourable tariffs, trade concessions, reparations and territory to Western powers. 

The two conflicts, along with the various treaties imposed during "century of humiliation", weakened the Chinese government's authority and forced China to open specified treaty ports (including Shanghai) to Western merchants.[1][2] In addition, China ceded sovereignty over Hong Kong to the British Empire, which maintained control over the region until 1997. During this period, the Chinese economy also contracted slightly as a result of the wars, though the Taiping Rebellion and Dungan Revolt had a much larger economic effect.[3] 

First Opium War 

The First Opium War broke out in 1839 between China and Britain and was fought over trading rights (including the right of free trade) and Britain's diplomatic status among Chinese officials. In the eighteenth century, China enjoyed a trade surplus with Europe, trading porcelain, silk, and tea in exchange for silver. By the late 18th century, the British East India Company (EIC) expanded the cultivation of opium in the Bengal Presidency, selling it to private merchants who transported it to China and covertly sold it on to Chinese smugglers.[4] By 1797, the EIC was selling 4,000 chests of opium (each weighing 77 kg) to private merchants per annum.[5]


In earlier centuries, opium was utilised as a medicine with anaesthetic qualities, but new Chinese practices of smoking opium recreationally increased demand tremendously and often led to smokers developing addictions. Successive Chinese emperors issued edicts making opium illegal in 1729, 1799, 1814, and 1831, but imports grew as smugglers and colluding officials in China sought profit.[6] Some American merchants entered the trade by smuggling opium from Turkey into China, including Warren Delano Jr., the grandfather of twentieth-century President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Francis Blackwell Forbes; in American historiography this is sometimes referred to as the Old China Trade.[7] By 1833, the Chinese opium trade soared to 30,000 chests.[5] British and American merchants sent opium to warehouses in the free-trade port of Canton, and sold it to Chinese smugglers.[6][8]


In 1834, the EIC's monopoly on British trade with China ceased, and the opium trade burgeoned. Partly concerned with moral issues over the consumption of opium and partly with the outflow of silver, the Daoguang Emperor charged High Commissioner Lin Zexu with ending the trade. In 1839, Lin published in Canton an open letter to Queen Victoria requesting her cooperation in a halting the opium trade. The letter never reached the Queen.[9] It was later published in The Times as a direct appeal to the British public for their cooperation.[10] An edict from the Daoguang Emperor followed on 18 March,[11] emphasising the serious penalties for opium smuggling that would now apply henceforth. Lin ordered the seizure of all opium in Canton, including that held by foreign governments and trading companies (called factories),[12] and the companies prepared to hand over a token amount to placate him.[13][page needed] Charles Elliot, Chief Superintendent of British Trade in China, arrived 3 days after the expiry of Lin's deadline, as Chinese troops enforced a shutdown and blockade of the factories. The standoff ended after Elliot paid for all the opium on credit from the British government (despite lacking official authority to make the purchase) and handed the 20,000 chests (1,300 metric tons) over to Lin, who had them destroyed at Humen.[citation needed]


Elliott then wrote to London advising the use of military force to resolve the dispute with the Chinese government. A small skirmish occurred between British and Chinese warships in the Kowloon Estuary on 4 September 1839.[12] After almost a year, the British government decided, in May 1840, to send a military expedition to impose reparations for the financial losses experienced by opium traders in Canton and to guarantee future security for the trade. On 21 June 1840 a British naval force arrived off Macao and moved to bombard the port of Dinghai. In the ensuing conflict, the Royal Navy used its superior ships and guns to inflict a series of decisive defeats on Chinese forces.[14]


The war was concluded by the Treaty of Nanjing in 1842, the first of the Unequal treaties between China and Western powers.[15] The treaty ceded the Hong Kong Island and surrounding smaller islands to Britain, and established five cities as treaty ports open to Western traders: Shanghai, Canton, Ningpo, Foochow, and Amoy.[16] The treaty also stipulated that China would pay a twenty-one million dollar payment to Britain as reparations for the destroyed opium, with six million to be paid immediately, and the rest through specified installments thereafter.[17] Another treaty the following year gave most favoured nation status to Britain and added provisions for British extraterritoriality.[15] France secured the same concessions in treaties of 1843 and 1844.[18] 

Second Opium War 

In 1853, northern China was convulsed by the Taiping Rebellion, which established its capital at Nanking. In spite of this, a new Imperial Commissioner Ye Mingchen was appointed at Canton, determined to stamp out the opium trade, which was still technically illegal. In October 1856 he seized the Arrow, a ship claiming British registration, and threw its crew into chains. Sir John Bowring, Governor of British Hong Kong, called up Rear Admiral Sir Michael Seymour's East Indies and China Station fleet which on 23 October bombarded and captured the Pearl River forts on the approach to Canton, and proceeded to bombard Canton itself, but had insufficient forces to take and hold the city. On 15 December, during a riot in Canton, European commercial properties were set on fire and Bowring appealed for military intervention.[16] The execution of a French missionary inspired support from France.[citation needed]


Britain and France now sought greater concessions from China, including the legalization of the opium trade, expanding of the transportation of coolies to European colonies, opening all of China to British and French citizens and exempting foreign imports from internal transit duties.[19] The war resulted in the 1858 Treaty of Tientsin, in which the Chinese government agreed to pay war reparations for the expenses of the recent conflict, open a second group of ten ports to European commerce, legalize the opium trade, and grant foreign traders and missionaries rights to travel within China.[16] After a second phase of fighting which included the sack of the Old Summer Palace and the occupation of the Forbidden City palace complex in Beijing, the treaty was confirmed by the Convention of Peking in 1860.[citation needed]

More on design as heuristic.

 Emily Reeves: The Systems Biology Revolution 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

On a new episode of ID the Future, biochemist and metabolic nutritionist Emily Reeves tells the story of the systems biology revolution, why it is intelligent-design friendly, and why it is overturning Darwinian reductionism. This presentation was recorded at the 2022 Westminster Conference on Science and Faith in the greater Philadelphia area, which was jointly sponsored by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture and Westminster Theological Seminary. Download the podcast or listen to it here. 


Darwinists are finding that resistance is futile?

 Beneficial Borgs Have Landed 

David Coppedge 

As I reported last year when it was first announced, Nature proclaimed the existence of “unexpected structures” in soils that appear to gather and share genetic know-how between microbes. 


Jillian Banfield coined the term “Borgs” for the structures after the mythical Star Trek beings that grow by assimilating other beings. Now, Nature has published work by Banfield and her colleagues on this phenomenon, using her creative term in the title: “Borgs are giant genetic elements with potential to expand metabolic capacity.” One of the co-authors is Jennifer Doudna who discovered the CRISPR-Cas9 gene splicing mechanism.


A “Borg” is described as a “storage locker” for genes in news from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. See, Aliyah Kovner, “Methane-Eating ‘Borgs’ Have Been Assimilating Earth’s Microbes.” And they might just help save the planet. How? They can share information with microbes on how to “eat” methane — a potent greenhouse gas believed to be contributing to climate change. If we can breed them, we might be able to reduce methane emissions.


Wondering why some archaea microbes in the Methanoperedens family contain Borgs in their genomes and some do not, Kovner suggests the following reason:

One likely explanation is that Borgs act as a storage locker for metabolic genes that are only needed at certain times. Ongoing methane monitoring research has shown that methane concentrations can vary significantly throughout the year, usually peaking in the fall and dropping to the lowest levels in early spring. The Borgs therefore provide a competitive advantage to methane-eating microbes like Methanoperedens during periods of abundance when there is more methane than their native cellular machinery can break down.  

Whether the advantage is “competitive” or not in a Darwinian sense, it would certainly be convenient for an organism to stash its methane-digesting tools in a storage locker in the off season. This implies the ability to find the tools later.  

The Discovery 

Banfield and colleagues were gathering mud samples in the East River near Crested Butte, Colorado, when they discovered the Borgs. She classifies them with plasmids as “extra-chromosomal elements” (ECEs), except that Borgs tend to be much larger. Some of them can have a million base pairs of information — a third the size of a Methanoperedens genome. 


The Borgs are not separate entities; they live within cells but appear to be giant “DNA packages” that can shuttle between microbes. How the sharing is accomplished for such large collections of data remains to be seen. 


Where did Borgs come from? Banfield is not sure; she compares it to examples of endosymbiosis that supposedly gave rise to chloroplasts in plants and mitochondria in animals. There are differences, though; “the overall diversity of genes found in the Borgs indicates that these DNA packages were assimilated from a wide range of organisms.” 

We can neither prove that they are archaeal viruses or plasmids or minichromosomes, nor prove that they are not. Although they may ultimately be classified as megaplasmids, they are clearly different from anything that has been previously reported. It is fascinating to ponder their possible evolutionary origins. Borg homologous recombination may indicate movement among hosts, thus their possible roles as gene transfer agents. 

Must Borgs have “evolutionary” origins? Maybe they co-existed with the microbes from the start. It’s incredibly exciting to discover a new biological paradigm coming to light that, to the microbes at least, is not new at all.  

No matter the origin, it is clear that Borgs have existed alongside these archaea, shuttling genes back and forth, for a very long time. 

Plasmids were already known as ECEs that contain genes for antibiotic resistance that microbes can share within soils. By comparison, Borgs are like large diverse libraries of information open to a wide variety of organisms. 

Plasmids are known to serve a similar purpose, quickly spreading genes for resistance to toxic molecules (like heavy metals and antibiotics) when the toxins are present in high enough concentrations to exert evolutionary pressure.


“There is evidence that different types of Borgs sometimes coexist in the same host Methanopreredens cell. This opens the possibility that Borgs could be spreading genes across lineages,” said Banfield. 

With national labs and prestigious journals starting to read these storage libraries of genetic information, more surprises are sure to come.  

Notably, some Methanoperedens were found with no Borgs. And, in addition to recognizable genes, the Borgs also contain unique genes encoding other metabolic proteins, membrane proteins, and extracellular proteinsalmost certainly involved in electron conduction required for energy generation, as well as other proteins that have unknown effects on their hosts. 

A New Paradigm  

The finding that some archaea contain “storage lockers” of genetic information is giving rise to a new paradigm about genetic inheritance. Now, Borgs can be added to my list from last month of gene sharing processes, enlarging the thought of “immense implications for neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized.”  

No means no.

 John18:36KJV"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." 

Christ's kingdom is no part of the present civilisation it is meant to supplant,to replace the present civilisation not to ameliorate it.

The bible makes it quite clear that it is only after our resurrection that we begin  to rule as kings with Christ. 

Revelation20:6KJV"6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." 

Revelation2:10KJV"Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. " 

So only after a lifetime of tested and perfected integrity in the flesh. Do we get to rule as kings and priests with Christ(i.e all who are called and chosen). 

Thus it is not the business of the true Church to attempt to foist Christian religion/morals on this dying system at gunpoint as many of the fake churches of Christendom seem bent on doing. 

Nations come and go JEHOVAH'S kingdom is forever. 

Deuteronomy2:9KJV9And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession." 

The Moabites practiced the same disgusting demon worship that the Canaanites practiced(and for which they were being punished by God). Yet the Israelites were not to make it their business to impose God's law by force of arms on Moab. They fought to keep the (then national) Church clean not to clean up the world or even the region. 

Note please that the Moabites were assigned an inviolable possession by JEHOVAH, just like the Israelites were, JEHOVAH has given the unbeliever the right to his unbelief and the rebel the right to his rebellion. But why? Two reasons,1) he knows that folly is its own penalty 

Proverbs4:19NIV"But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble."  

2)He does not want hypocritical ingrates in his Church :

Psalms15:1,2ASV"1JEHOVAH, who shall sojourn in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy hill?


2He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, And speaketh truth in his HEART;" 

We owe our heavenly Father a debt that can never be repaid, and I'm not even referring to the forgiveness of our mountain of sins.

Acts14:17NIV"Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.”" 

Our cup was already filled and he just kept pouring. The Lord JEHOVAH is the only one worthy of our vow of dedication. If you can't utter the vow from your heart then feel free to turn aside to which ever other God you imagine can take our Lord's place,pleasure,money,the Fatherland,the party ,the latest political messiah ,hey have at it.

But JEHOVAH'S loyalists choose to concur with the words of the ancient sage:

Joshua24:15ASV"And if it seem evil unto you to serve JEHOVAH, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve JEHOVAH."






Friday, 21 October 2022

The Watchtower society's commentary on Paul's epistle to the Hebrews.

HEBREWS, LETTER TO THE.

An inspired letter of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Evidence indicates that it was written by the apostle Paul to the Hebrew Christians In Judea about 61 C.E. To those Hebrew Christians the letter was most timely. It had then been about twenty-eight years since Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. In the earlier part of that period severe persecution had been brought upon these Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and Judea by the Jewish religious leaders, resulting in the death of some Christians and the scattering of most of the others from Jerusalem. (Acts 8:1) The scattered ones remained active in spreading the good news everywhere they went. (Acts 8:4) The apostles had stayed in Jerusalem and had held the remaining congregation together there, and it had grown, even under stiff opposition. (Acts 8:14) Then, for a time, the congregation entered into a period of peace. (Acts 9:31) Later, Herod Agrippa I caused the death of the apostle James, John’s brother, and mistreated others of the congregation. (Acts 12:1-5) Sometime after this there developed a material need among the Christians in Judea, giving opportunity for those in Achaia and Macedonia (in about 55 C.E.) to demonstrate their love and unity by sending aid. (1 Cor. 16:1-3; 2 Cor. 9:1-5) So the Jerusalem congregation had suffered many hardships.An inspired letter of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Evidence indicates that it was written by the apostle Paul to the Hebrew Christians In Judea about 61 C.E. To those Hebrew Christians the letter was most timely. It had then been about twenty-eight years since Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. In the earlier part of that period severe persecution had been brought upon these Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and Judea by the Jewish religious leaders, resulting in the death of some Christians and the scattering of most of the others from Jerusalem. (Acts 8:1) The scattered ones remained active in spreading the good news everywhere they went. (Acts 8:4) The apostles had stayed in Jerusalem and had held the remaining congregation together there, and it had grown, even under stiff opposition. (Acts 8:14) Then, for a time, the congregation entered into a period of peace. (Acts 9:31) Later, Herod Agrippa I caused the death of the apostle James, John’s brother, and mistreated others of the congregation. (Acts 12:1-5) Sometime after this there developed a material need among the Christians in Judea, giving opportunity for those in Achaia and Macedonia (in about 55 C.E.) to demonstrate their love and unity by sending aid. (1 Cor. 16:1-3; 2 Cor. 9:1-5) So the Jerusalem congregation had suffered many hardships. 

PURPOSE OF THE LETTER 

The congregation in Jerusalem was comprised almost entirely of Jews and those who had been proselytes to the Jews’ religion. Many of these had come to a knowledge of the truth since the time of the most bitter persecution. At the time the letter to the Hebrews was written the congregation was enjoying comparative peace, for Paul told them: “You have never yet resisted as far as blood.” (Heb. 12:4) Nevertheless, the lessening of outright physical persecution to death did not mean that strong opposition from the Jewish religious leaders had ceased. The newer members of the congregation had to face the opposition just as did the rest. And some others were immature, not having made the progress toward maturity that they should have made in view of the time.—Heb. 5:12.


That the letter to the Hebrews was inspired by Jehovah’s spirit is clearly evident. The immature Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem and Judea seriously needed counsel, and all in the congregation needed encouragement. Time was running out for Jerusalem. The situation would call for alertness and faith on the part of the Christians there to obey Jesus’ warning to flee from the city when they should see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies. (Luke 21:20-22) According to tradition, this took place in 66 C.E. when Cestius Gallus’ troops withdrew after beginning an attack on the city. Then, in 70 C.E., Jerusalem and its temple would be razed to the ground by the Roman general Titus. Every member of the Christian congregation, and especially the immature ones, would have to strengthen themselves for these momentous events. The opposition they faced daily from the Jews put their faith to a test. They needed to build up the quality of endurance.—Heb. 12:1, 2. 

Jewish opposition 

The Jewish religious leaders, by lying propaganda, had done everything they could to stir up hatred. Their determination to fight Christianity with every possible weapon is demonstrated by their actions, as recorded in Acts 22:22; 23:12-15, 23, 24; 24:1-4; 25:1-3. They and their supporters constantly harassed the Christians, evidently using arguments in an effort to break their loyalty to Christ. They attacked Christianity with what might seem to be powerful reasoning to a Jew, and hard to answer.


At that time Judaism had much to offer in the way of tangible, material things and outward appearance. These things, the Jews might say, proved Judaism superior and Christianity foolish. Why, said they to Jesus, as their father the nation had Abraham, to whom the promises were given. (John 8:33, 39) Moses, to whom God spoke “mouth to mouth,” was God’s great servant and prophet. (Num. 12:7, 8) The Jews had the Law and the words of the prophets from the beginning. Did not this very antiquity establish Judaism as the true religion? they might ask. At the inaugurating of the Law covenant God had spoken by means of angels; in fact, the Law was transmitted through angels by the hand of the mediator Moses. (Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19) On this occasion God had given a fear-inspiring demonstration of power in shaking Mount Sinai; the loud sound of a horn, smoke, thunder and lightning accompanied the glorious display.—Ex. 19:16-19; 20:18; Heb. 12:18-21.


Besides all these things of antiquity, there stood the magnificent temple with its priesthood instituted by Jehovah, carrying on their duties daily with many sacrifices. Accompanying these things were the richness of the priestly garments and the splendor of the services conducted at the temple. ‘Had not Jehovah commanded that sacrifices for sin be brought to the sanctuary, and did not the high priest, the descendant of Moses’ own brother Aaron, enter the Most Holy on the Day of Atonement with a sacrifice for the sins of the whole nation? On this occasion, did he not approach representatively into the very presence of God?, the Jews might argue. (Lev. chap. 16) ‘Furthermore, was not the kingdom the possession of the Jews, with one (the Messiah, who would later come, as they said) to sit on the throne at Jerusalem to rule?’


If the letter to the Hebrews was being written to equip the Christians to answer objections that were actually being raised by the Jews, then those enemies of Christianity had contended in this way: What did this new “heresy” have to point to as evidence of its genuineness and of God’s favor? Where was their temple and their priesthood? In fact, where was their leader? Was he of any importance among the leaders of the nation during his lifetime—this Jesus, a Galilean, a carpenter’s son, with no rabbinical education? And did he not die an ignominious death? Where was his kingdom? And who were his apostles and followers? Mere fishermen and tax collectors. Furthermore, whom did Christianity draw, for the most part? The poor and lowly persons of the earth and, even worse, uncircumcised Gentiles, not of the seed of Abraham, were accepted. Why should anyone put his trust in this Jesus Christ, who had been put to death as a blasphemer and a seditionist? Why listen to his disciples, men unlettered and ordinary?—Acts 4:13. 

The superiority of the Christian system of things 

ome of the immature Christians may have become neglectful of their salvation through Christ. (Heb. 2:1-4) Or, they may have been swayed by the unbelieving Jews who surrounded them. Coming to their aid with masterful argument, using the Hebrew Scriptures, on which the Jews claimed to rely, the apostle shows irrefutably the superiority of the Christian system of things and of the priesthood and kingship of Jesus Christ. He Scripturally demonstrates that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, greater than angels (1:4-6), than Abraham (7:1-7), than Moses (3:1-6) and the prophets. (1:1, 2) In fact, Christ is the appointed heir of all things, crowned with glory and honor and appointed over the works of Jehovah’s hands.—1:2; 2:7-9.


As to priesthood, Christ’s is far superior to the Aaronic priesthood of the tribe of Levi. It is dependent, not on inheritance from sinful flesh, but on an oath of God. (Heb. 6:13-20; 7:5-17, 20-28) Why, though, did he endure such hardships and die a death of suffering? This was foretold as essential to mankind’s salvation and to qualify him as High Priest and the one to whom God will subject all things. (2:8-10; 9:27, 28; compare Isaiah 53:12.) He had to become blood and flesh and die in order to emancipate all those who through fear of death were in slavery. Through his death he is able to bring to nothing the Devil, a thing no human priest could do. (2:14-16) He, having so suffered, is a High Priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses and can come to our help, having been tested in all respects.—2:17, 18; 4:15.


Moreover, argues the apostle, this High Priest “passed through the heavens” and appeared in the very presence of God, not in a mere earthly tent or building that was only pictorial of heavenly things. (Heb. 4:14; 8:1; 9:9, 10, 24) He needed to appear only once with his perfect, sinless sacrifice, not over and over again. (7:26-28; 9:25-28) He has no successors, as did the Aaronic priests, but lives forever to save completely those to whom he ministers. (7:15-17, 23-25) Christ is Mediator of the better covenant foretold through Jeremiah, under which sins can really be forgiven, and consciences made clean, things that the Law could never accomplish. The “Ten Words,” the basic laws of the Law covenant, were written on stone; the law of the new covenant on hearts. This prophetic word of Jehovah by Jeremiah made the Law covenant obsolete, to vanish away in time.—8:6-13; Jer. 31:31-34; Deut. 4:13; 10:4. It is true, the writer of Hebrews continues, that an awesome display of power was manifested at Sinai, demonstrating God’s approval of the Law covenant. But even more forcefully God bore witness at the inauguration of the new covenant with signs, portents and powerful works, along with distributions of holy spirit to all the members of the congregation assembled. (Heb. 2:2-4; compare Acts 2:1-4.) And as to Christ’s kingship, his throne is in the heavens itself, far higher than that of the kings of the line of David who sat on the throne in earthly Jerusalem. (1:9) God is the foundation of Christ’s throne and his kingdom cannot be shaken, as was the kingdom in Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. (1:8; 12:28) Furthermore, God has gathered his people before something far more awe-inspiring than the miraculous display at Mount Sinai. He has caused anointed Christians to approach the heavenly Mount Zion, and will yet shake, not only the earth, but also the heaven.—12:18:27.


The letter to the Hebrews is of inestimable value to Christians and a strong encouragement to faith, hope, love and endurance. Without the letter, many of the realities concerning Christ as foreshadowed by the Law would be unclear. For example, the Jews had known all along from the Hebrew Scriptures that when their high priest went into the Most Holy compartment of the sanctuary in their behalf he was representing them before Jehovah. But they never appreciated this reality: that someday the real High Priest would actually appear in the heavens in Jehovah’s very presence! And as we read the Hebrew Scriptures, how could we realize the tremendous significance of the account of Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek, or know so clearly what this king-priest typified? This, of course, is to cite only two examples out of the many realities that we come to visualize in reading the letter.


The faith that the letter builds helps Christians to hold onto their hope by means of “the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld,” and to keep looking to the “better place, that is, one belonging to heaven.” (Heb. 11:1, 16) At a time when many persons rely on antiquity, the material wealth and power of organizations and the splendor of rites and ceremonies and look to the wisdom of this world instead of to God, the divinely inspired letter to the Hebrews admirably helps to make the man of God “fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Tim. 3:16, 17. 

WRITERSHIP AND TIME, PLACE WRITTEN 

Writership of the letter to the Hebrews is widely ascribed to the apostle Paul. It was accepted as an epistle of Paul by some early writers, among them Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 C.E.) and Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.). The Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P46) (of the early third century C.E.) contains Hebrews among nine of Paul’s letters, and it is listed among “fourteen letters of Paul the apostle” in “The Canon of Athanasius,” of the fourth century C.E.


The writer of Hebrews does not identify himself by name. Even though all his other letters do bear his name, this lack of identification of the writer would obviously not rule out Paul. Internal evidence in the letter strongly points to Paul as its writer, and the place of writing as Italy, probably Rome. (Heb. 13:24) It was in Rome during the years 59 to 61 C.E. that Paul was first imprisoned. Timothy was with Paul in Rome, being mentioned in the apostle’s letters to the Philippians, the Colossians and Philemon, written from Rome during that imprisonment. (Phil. 1:1; 2:19; Col. 1:1, 2; Philem. 1:1) This circumstance fits the remark at Hebrews 13:23 about Timothy’s release from prison and the writer’s desire to visit Jerusalem soon.


The time of writing was before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., for the temple at Jerusalem still stood, with services being performed there, as is evident from the argument in the letter. And Paul’s remark about Timothy’s being released reasonably fixes the time of writing about nine years earlier, namely, 61 C.E., when it is thought that Paul himself was released from his first imprisonment. 

OUTLINE OF CONTENTS 

Christ’s superior position (1:1–3:6)


A. Is heir of all things and the one through whom God made the systems of things (1:1, 2)


B. Is better than angels (1:3-14)


1. In being the Son of God (1:3-7)


2. As God’s King forever (1:8-12)


3. By exaltation to God’s right hand; angels only servants (1:13, 14)


C. We should pay unusual attention to things spoken by God through Christ (2:1-18)


1. Retribution cannot be escaped if we neglect salvation spoken through him and borne witness to by God (2:1-4)


2. Inhabited earth to come will be subjected to Christ, who, though made temporarily lower than angels, is now exalted for having tasted death for every man (2:5-9)


3. He is God’s Chief Agent of salvation (2:10-18)


a. He had to become blood and flesh, then die, in order to bring Devil to nothing and emancipate “all those who for fear of death were subject to slavery”


b. Not helping angels, spirits, but helping Abraham’s seed, who were blood and flesh


D. Christ, as Son over God’s house, is greater than Moses, who was merely faithful attendant (3:1-6)


II. Entering God’s rest possible at this time (3:7–4:13)


A. Israelites’ unfaithfulness in wilderness, failure to enter God’s rest, a warning to Christians (3:7–4:5)


B. Rest into which Joshua led Israel not the real ‘rest of God’; exercise of obedience needed to enter into sabbath resting that remains now for people of God (4:6-9)


C. Christian must rest from own (self) works, realizing God’s word discerns “thoughts and intentions of the heart” (4:10-13)


III. Superiority of Christ’s priesthood (4:14–7:28)


A. Christ is God-appointed, tested, compassionate High Priest “according to the manner of Melchizedek”; has “passed through the heavens” (4:14–6:3)


1. We should hold onto our confessing of him and approach with freeness of speech to the throne to obtain mercy (4:14–5:3)


2. Christ did not glorify or appoint himself; offered supplications to God, was heard for his godly fear (5:4-7)


3. Learned obedience through suffering, became responsible for salvation of obedient ones (5:8–6:3)


a. Therefore, immature ones must press on to maturity


b. Train perceptive powers to distinguish right and wrong


c. Progress from primary doctrine to learn deeper things about Christ B. Those falling away impale Christ afresh, cannot be revived to repentance; hence, all are urged to continue showing industriousness and imitating faithful, patient ones (6:4-12)


C. Heirs of God’s promise to Abraham who continue to trust in Christ’s priesthood have an assured hope (6:13-20)


1. God’s promise and His oath are two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie (6:13-18)


2. Jesus’ entry as forerunner “within the curtain” provides heirs of promise the assurance of realizing that hope (6:19, 20)


D. Christ greater than Abraham; Jesus’ priesthood superior to Levitical priesthood (7:1-28)


1. Like that of King-Priest Melchizedek, who blessed Abraham and to whom Abraham (and thus yet-unborn Levi) paid tithes (7:1-10)


2. Perfection not through imperfect Levitical priesthood; change of priesthood was needed, also change of law (7:11-28)


a. Christ of tribe of Judah, not Levi


b. Christ’s priesthood not dependent on fleshly descent; he has indestructible life


c. He has no successors, is able to save completely all those approaching God through him


d. Sinful Levitical priests offered sacrifices for their own sins and those of people daily; sinless Christ offered himself up once; is perfected in office forever


IV. Superiority of new covenant (8:1–10:39)


A. Mediator and High Priest sits at God’s right hand in heavens, in “true tent” put up by Jehovah (8:1-3)


B. Sacred service rendered according to Law only typical of heavenly things (8:4-6)


C. New covenant foretold through Jeremiah (8:7-13; Jer. 31:31-34)


1. By it God’s laws are put in mind and written in heart (8:7-12)


2. God’s declared purpose makes former covenant become obsolete 

 “near to vanishing away” (8:13) 

D. Sacred tent and its services and sacrifices under former covenant were shadow and illustration of time now here (9:1–10:18)


1. Description of earthly tent, with furnishings, utensils (9:1-5)


2 High priest alone took blood into second compartment once a year (9:6-10)


a. Holy spirit thereby showed way into holy place not then manifest


b. Sacrifices made could not make men perfect as respects conscience


3. Christ entered into greater “tent” once with own blood, obtaining everlasting deliverance and cleansing consciences of believers (9:11-14)


4. Law covenant inaugurated with animal blood; new covenant validated by blood of Christ (9:15-22)


5. Christ entered heaven itself, appeared before God (9:23-28)


a. By one sacrifice put sin away once for all time


b. Will appear second time for judgment and for salvation of believers


6. Animal sacrifices ineffectual; prophecy foretold that God’s will was to abolish them and establish real sacrifice through Christ (10:1-10; Ps. 40:6-8)


7. After Christ’s one sacrifice, sat down at God’s right hand until time for enemies to be made footstool (10:11-18) 

E. By this new and living way of entry may approach God by means of great High Priest with true hearts, clean consciences (10:19-39)


1. Hold fast to public declaration of faith (10:23)


2. Gather together, encouraging one another (10:24, 25)


3. Avoid falling into willful practice of sin, which brings destruction (10:26-31)


4. Endure by faith; do not shrink back to destruction (10:32-39)


V. Faith essential to please God, receive reward (11:1–12:17)


A. Definition of faith (11:1-3)


B. Examples of faith: Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses and others (11:4-40)


1. Men of faith died, not getting fulfillment of promises (11:4-13)


2. They reached out for better place, one belonging to heaven (11:14-38)


3. Will be made perfect, but not apart from joint heirs with Christ (11:39, 40)


C. Faith requires discipline (12:1-17)


1. Surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, we should lay aside all weights in running race, looking intently at Jesus (12:1-3)


2. Do not belittle Jehovah’s discipline, which is for our good (12:4-11)


3. Make straight paths, pursue peace, sanctification (12:12-14)


4. Watch that no “poisonous” thing or person defiles others in congregation (12:15-17) 

VI. Superiority of Christian’s position (12:18-29)


A. Not approaching a literal mountain, but a heavenly Zion and Jerusalem, assembly of angels, congregation of firstborn, God the Judge of all and Jesus the Mediator (12:18-24)


B. God will shake both earth and heaven to remove shakable things (12:25-27)


C. Christians receive kingdom that cannot be shaken (12:28, 29)


VII. Concluding exhortations and remarks (13:1-25)


A. Counsel on brotherly love, hospitality, keeping marriage honorable and dependence on Jehovah (13:1-6)


B. Imitate faith of those taking lead; avoid being carried away with strange teachings (13:7-9)


C. Suffer reproach of Christ, looking for city to come (13:10-14)


D. Offer sacrifices of praise, do good, share with others (13:15, 16)


E. Be submissive to those taking lead (13:17)


F. Writer requests prayer of brothers, promises visit to Jerusalem, closes with greetings (13:18-25) 

Just another ape?

Berlinski, Metaxas in NYC: What Is a Human Being? 

David Klinghoffer 

The issues involved in the evolution debate — biological origins, human origins, human exceptionalism, intelligent design in life’s history versus the materialist theory of unguided Darwinian processes — derive their interest and importance largely from one question: What is a human being? If Darwinists are right, we are no more than another beast in the jungle. And you can expect about as much from us. Check out our current national culture to see the consequences of that idea being unfurled. If design proponents are correct, we are supremely more than beasts, at least potentially. “A little lower than the angels,” as the Psalmist said.


David Berlinski and Eric Metaxas will tackle the issue directly in what sounds like it will be a fantastic event in New York City on November 1. It’s a Socrates in the City public discussion at the Union League Club, devoted to the exploration of human nature. Philosopher, skeptic, and wit, Dr. Berlinski is the author most recently of the book Human Nature. He and Eric Metaxas are both hilarious in very different ways, so if you can make it, this will be a most entertaining evening. Tickets are on sale here. The price is not bad considering that the Club is quite the posh venue. Gentlemen, don’t forget your coat and tie if you wish to be admitted. 

 

The fossil record continues to not get with the program?

 Fossil Friday: Flowering Plants — Darwin’s Abominable Mystery 

Günter Bechly 

This Fossil Friday features an as yet undescribed putative fossil flowering plant from the Lower Cretaceous Crato limestone of northeast Brazil, which was never published before. I photographed this beautiful specimen at a German trader’s collection in July 2008. Flowering plants or angiosperms appear abruptly in the fossil record of the Lower Cretaceous (about 130 million years ago), which of course contradicts the gradualist expectations of Darwinian evolution.


This inconvenient fact troubled Charles Darwin so much that he called it an abominable mystery. I discussed this mystery in a previous article series at Evolution News (Bechly 2021b, 2021c, 2021d, 2021e) and in a podcast at ID the Future (Bechly 2021a). All claims about alleged Jurassic flowering plants have been debunked by experts (Sokoloff et al. 2019, Bateman 2020). Botanist Richard Buggs even showed (Buggs 2017a, 2017b, 2021) that Darwin’s abominable mystery is not only alive and kicking but in fact became worse with our growing knowledge about the plant fossil record, which clearly proves that this is not an artifact of our insufficient knowledge about an incomplete fossil record. 

A Sensational Discovery? 

The most recent claim for a Jurassic angiosperm was made by Wang (2021), with the description of an alleged angiosperm fruit Dilcherifructus mexicana from the Middle Jurassic of North America. The fact that such a sensational discovery, which would be akin to finding the holy grail of paleobotany, was published in an arcane journal without an impact factor instead of the cover story in a top-tier journal like Nature should ring all your alarm bells. Indeed, there is a reason this paper was totally ignored by the paleobotanic scientific community. This reason is as simple as it is embarrassing: the paper is total bonkers! 


Here is what Mario Coiro, an expert on plant evolution, wrote on Twitter. He was asked by a colleague what he thinks Dilcherifructus is. He replied, “a Samaropsis-like winged seed. And a proof that plant anatomy is taught so poorly that a gymnosperm-like stoma is mistaken for an angiosperm-like stoma.” This scathing comment says it all. Given the disastrous track record for all alleged Jurassic angiosperms, it will be wise to remain very Darwin’s “abominable mystery”. American Journal of Botany 108(1), 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.1592

Oskin B 2015. Controversy Blooms Over Earliest Flower Fossil. LiveScience April 8, 2015. https://www.livescience.com/50419-oldest-flower-fossil-angiosperm.html

Sokoloff DD, Remizowa MV, El ES, Rudall PJ & Bateman RM 2019. Supposed Jurassic angiosperms lack pentamery, an important angiosperm-specific feature. New Phytologist228(2), 420–426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15974

Wang X 2021. The Currently Earliest Angiosperm Fruit from the Jurassic of North America. Biosis: Biological Systems (2(4), 416–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37819/biosisskeptical when the next such claim should be made. Until then, enjoy the beautiful and diverse paleoflora of the Crato Formation and other contemporary fossil localities, when “angiosperms and their flowers sprang forth during the Cretaceous period, as fully formed as Aphrodite” (Oskin 2015). Exactly as Darwin did not predict. 

References 


Gossiping about neanderthal man?

 Got These Bad Habits? Blame Neanderthals!

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

This from a recent DNA analysis study:

Around 40% of the Neandertal genome can still be found in present-day non-Africans, and each individual still carries ~2% of Neandertal DNA. Some of the archaic genetic variants may have conferred benefits at some point in our evolutionary past. Today, scientists can use this information to learn more about the impact of these genetic variants on human behaviour and the risk of developing diseases.


Using this approach, a new study from an international team led by researchers from the University of Tartu, Charité Berlin and the Amsterdam UMC analysed Neandertal DNA associations with a large variety of more than a hundred brain disorders and traits such as sleep, smoking or alcohol use in the UK Biobank with the aim to narrow down the specific contribution of Neandertal DNA to variation in behavioural features in people today.


The study found that while Neandertal DNA showed over-proportional numbers of associations with several traits that are associated with central nervous system diseases, the diseases themselves did not show any significant numbers of Neandertal DNA associations. Among the traits with the strongest Neandertal DNA contribution were smoking habits, alcohol consumption and sleeping patterns. Using data from other cohorts such as the Estonian Biobank, the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety, FinnGen, Biobank Japan and deCode, several of these results could be replicated. Of specific note were two independent top-risk Neandertal variants for a positive smoking status that were found in the UK Biobank and Biobank Japan respectively. 


ESTONIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL, “NEANDERTHAL DNA MIGHT BE LINKED TO SMOKING, DRINKING, SLEEPING PATTERNS IN MODERN HUMANS: STUDY” AT EUREKALERT (OCTOBER 6, 2022) 

So. Neanderthal man, long extinct as a separate human group, now explains why we smoke and drink to excess… How handy. And who can refute it? 

Once Just a Brute 

Recently fossil scientists have also suggested, based on their research, that Neanderthals couldn’t meditate. But wait. How can we know that from fossil skulls, given that the mind–brain relationship is unclear even in currently living human beings? Do you know if your next-door neighbor can meditate? Does your cube-sharing co-worker know if you can? Really?


The interesting thing is that, over the years, Neanderthal man — once just a brute — has actually gotten smarter. That’s not because he has changed. It’s because we know more than we used to about our ancestors. It would be nice to think that it is also because we are less arrogant now but that would be much very harder to prove.


Read the rest at Mind Matters News, published by Discovery Institute’s Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.



Thursday, 20 October 2022

Science catching up with God? II

 Stephen Meyer: Galaxy Formation, the Early Universe, and the Big Bang 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

On a new episode of ID the Future, Return of the God Hypothesis author Stephen Meyer speaks with radio host Michael Medved about the extraordinarily powerful new James Webb Space Telescope. One researcher, Eric Lerner, has claimed that what the Webb telescope is seeing many billions of light years away (and therefore, many billions of years in the past) undercuts the Big Bang theory. But according to Meyer, the new photographs coming back from Webb actually further confirm the reality that our universe had a beginning — the Big Bang — and that it has been expanding ever since. What these Webb images are forcing a rethink on, Meyer says, is the conventional wisdom among cosmologists about galaxy formation in the early universe. Meyer explains why the evidence for a cosmic beginning is stronger than ever, as is the God hypothesis that it supports. Download the podcast or listen to it here. 


This zombie is finally buried for good?

Noncoding RNA Research Gaining Ground Over “Junk” Label 

David Coppedge 

Perhaps it won’t be long before everyone, critics included, looks at the “junk DNA” concept in the rear-view mirror. In Nature Methods this month, the editors give voice to paradigm shifters. “The research community focused on noncoding RNAs keeps growing,” writes journalist Vivien Marx in a Technology Feature (open access). But “Skepticism about the field has some history.” Like dark horse candidates taking the lead, the treasure hunters appear to be way ahead of the pack. Revealingly, the headline is written in past tense: “How noncoding RNAs began to leave the junkyard.” 

Junk. In the view of some, that’s what noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) are — genes that are transcribed but not translated into proteins. With one of his ncRNA papers, University of Queensland researcher Tim Mercer recalls that two reviewers said, “this is good” and the third said, “this is all junk; noncoding RNAs aren’t functional.” Debates over ncRNAs, in Mercer’s view, have generally moved from ‘it’s all junk’ to ‘which ones are functional?’ and ‘what are they doing?’ Researchers are mapping out the future of the field, which is the theme of a second story in this issue. Scientists in the ncRNA field have faced skepticism and worked to dispel it.  

Vivien Marx lists some “exemplar” ncRNAs that have been shown to be functional:


Xist: this lncRNA inactivates one of the X chromosomes in female mammals.

The lac operon is part of a gene regulatory circuit required for the transport and metabolism of lactose in E. coli and in many other enteric bacteria.

micF was among the first regulators of gene expression discovered. It inhibits translation of a target messenger RNA in response to environmental stress.

lin-4, a microRNA (miRNA), affects expression of a messenger RNA (mRNA) after it has been transcribed. 

As Aurora Esquela-Kerscher from Eastern Virginia Medical School points out, lin-4 is “the founding member of the miRNA superfamily.” Many miRNAs have been identified in plant, animal and viral genomes, and they appear to affect diverse cellular processes including proliferation, apoptosis, differentiation, metabolic and immune responses. Studying lin-4 in C. elegans brought a fundamental understanding of miRNAs mechanisms. miRNAs are “more complex than initially predicted,” and they direct important functions in the nucleus and cytoplasm; they modulate genes in positive and negative ways. “Stay tuned — these tiny RNAs likely have bigger surprises in store for us!” 

Noncoding RNAs are ubiquitous in the cell. Some act like switches that turn gene expression on and off in different cell types and tissues and in different stages of development. 

Once researchers discovered that one miRNA can regulate hundreds of different mRNAs — this began with the work on lin-4 — “it was a total game changer,” says Linscott. “Suddenly, we had an explanation for how many different parts of a given pathway might be influenced by a single noncoding element.” 

History and Outlook 

Marx’s article takes readers through a brief history of RNA discoveries, from the year 1869 when nucleic acids were first identified to the present. The field still lacks maturity, however, so design advocates should not rush to assume every base in the genome is functional. When the ENCODE consortium found that 80 percent of the genome was transcribed, it did not imply that the functions of all those transcripts were understood. 

What was lacking then and what is lacking still, he says, is a theory that would allow fitting RNA into the larger scheme of regulation. “Because all of the examples we knew of were kind of one-offs,” says Guttman. Small nuclear RNAs, for example, will base-pair with introns at splice sites to guide the splicing machinery. “How do you generalize beyond splicing?” he asks. Small nucleolar RNAs base-pair with 45S pre-ribosomal RNA; that’s another “one-off.” Xist, a lncRNA, silences one of the two X chromosomes in female mammals’ X chromosomes, and it presents another extrapolation challenge, says Guttman. The evidence about Xist is generally accepted, he says, but it remains seemingly exceptional. 

Genomics has clearly “evolved” beyond its earlier protein-centric thinking, Marx concludes, but “Doubts may remain and some aspects remain challenging to prove.” Design advocates should avoid the appearance of repeating “just-so stories” about functions of ncRNAs. Maite Huarte advises, “The lack of rigor in some studies has fed the skepticism of some researchers, and we face the challenge of producing the best possible evidence to overcome this prejudice.”


A month earlier in The Scientist, Christie Wilcox wrote about “The noncoding regulators in the brain.” Her article features a helpful infographic about types of ncRNAs. They are “not so noncoding” after all:

Noncoding RNA may be a bit of a misnomer. At least some lncRNAs, circRNAs, and transcripts of other so-called noncoding genomic regions do, in fact, contain open reading frames that code for micropeptides.


The coding-noncoding nomenclature for RNAs arose in the early days of genomic sequencing. “That’s kind of human nature there, to have to compartmentalize everything,” says University of Queensland molecular neuroscientist Timothy Bredy. But when it comes to the diversity of forms RNAs can take, researchers now know that such restrictive boxes just don’t capture reality. “We have to come up with a new way to describe them — like multidimensional, or multifunctional RNA species,” he says. 

The Road Ahead 

In a companion article in Nature Methods, Marx looks to “Some roads ahead for ncRNAs.” Now that GENCODE has identified 20,000 lncRNAs and the FANTOM consortium has identified 30,000, the priority is to “develop and apply methods to identify and understand the roles of lncRNAs and RNA networks” so that the scientific community can announce clear-cut results and propose applications. 

As matters shift from sweeping statements about junk and transcriptional noise, tasks shift to the practicalities of exploring functionality of ncRNAs to uncover their roles in differentiation, development and disease, says Mercer. He sees a new generation of scientists settling in to do the “hard work” of building on the field’s accomplishments, in which technology development and application have mattered. It will matter, for example, to combine methods — existing ones and new ones still to be developed. 

While there is “no dearth of ncRNAs” (the human genome has 96,411 lncRNA genes and 173,112 lncRNA transcripts, Marx notes), untangling the intricacies of the genomic network will take time. Alternative splicing can affect ncRNAs, producing different functions, just like it does with protein-coding transcripts. But since knockout experiments with ncRNAs are not as definitive as those with genes, one must not generalize from observations too quickly. What happens in one cell type may operate differently in another. John Mattick of the University of New South Wales is optimistic about the functional capacity of the genome: 

Genomes, says Mattick, are “zip files” of transcription, with many layers of information. “The human genome is incredibly information dense,” he says. ncRNAs are, for example, involved in brain development in ways yet to be deciphered. “There’s just a whole world of these things that are being produced in different stages of differentiation and development, and we’ve hardly scratched the surface of which ones do what.” 

Gene Yao at UC San Diego views the genome as a collection of isoforms involving both genes and non-coding regions. Seen that way, there is far more information packed into the genome than the small number of genes that surprised biochemists when the Human Genome Project was completed. 

Yeo advises keeping in mind that beyond the around 25,000 human genes there are hundreds and thousands of alternative isoforms. “When I think about RNA, I think really isoforms,” he says. Because isoforms cannot be distinguished by in situ hybridization, “I would say we’re missing 80% of the picture,” such as subcellular effects. This adds to the live cell measurements that aren’t readily possible. 

Bringing Critics Around 

There are still critics who think the RNA research community is “overstating the extent of lncRNA function” and making unsubstantiated claims. The exemplars cannot yet be generalized to other ncRNAs of unknown function, they argue. Proponents respond that progress is hard. It is much more difficult to perturb ncRNAs without affecting anything else. Non-coding RNAs are not “evolutionarily conserved” like many genes are — a clue geneticists have used to evaluate likely functional importance. Each ncRNA must be evaluated within its cell type and developmental context. 


Some critics point to the low expression levels of ncRNAs to argue that they can’t be all that important. Marx lets Mitch Guttman of Caltech respond; he points out that “lncRNAs ‘can punch above their weight,’ and act in a nonstoichiometric way to amplify effects.” By analogy, one switch can turn a lot of things on or off. Wilcox quotes Duke University developmental neurobiologist Debra Silver: 

“It’s sort of like hitting, for lack of a better term, almost a master regulator of gene expression,” says Silver. “And by doing that, it’s going to influence gene expression of its targets likely in a very cell-specific, tissue-specific, timing-specific fashion, and that itself could then affect expression of downstream targets below that.” Because of this, she adds “even though our genomes of human and, say, chimpanzees are remarkably similar globally at the DNA level, there is a whole host of regulatory changes at the RNA level that are likely to contribute synergistically to human-specific traits.” 

Wilcox agrees that RNAs have gotten “a lot more attention” in the last 10 to 15 years, but the field needs to move past the cataloging stage and determine functions of the thousands of identified ncRNAs. “One of the trickier aspects of studying noncoding RNAs is that they don’t act alone,” she says. “Rather, they function in networks and systems in cells that can be tricky to recapitulate in experimental models.”


These are examples of debates currently going on in the field of RNA research. Now that voluminous data has been collected on noncoding regions of the genome, researchers are busy doing the hard work to analyze it and understand it. More young scientists are choosing RNA research as their career specialty. Without overstating the case, design advocates can watch this scientific revolution with anticipation that the degree of specified complexity in the genome will continue to grow. 


 

More than the sum of my parts.

 Is Consciousness a “Controlled Brain Hallucination”? 

Michael Egnor 

Philosopher David Chalmers famously divided the problem of understanding how consciousness is related to the brain by distinguishing between the easy and hard problems of consciousness.


The easy problem of consciousness is typically faced by working neuroscientists — i.e., what parts of the brain are metabolically active when we’re awake? What kinds of neurons are involved in memory? These problems are “easy” only in the sense that they are tractable. The neuroscience necessary to answer them is challenging but, with enough skill and perseverance, it can be done.


The hard problem of consciousness is another matter entirely. It is this: How can first-person subjective experience arise from brain matter? How do we get an “I” from an “it”? Compared with the easy problem, the hard problem is, from the perspective of materialist neuroscience, intractable. 

Evading the Hard Problem 

Many neuroscientists evade the hard problem by denying its relevance to neuroscience. In a recent essay, leading neuroscientist Anil Seth, co-director of the Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science at the University of Sussex in Brighton, eschews the easy/hard problem distinction: 

T]he rise of modern neuroscience has seen a more pragmatic approach gain ground: an approach that is guided by philosophy but doesn’t rely on philosophical research to provide the answers. Its key is to recognise that explaining why consciousness exists at all is not necessary in order to make progress in revealing its material basis – to start building explanatory bridges from the subjective and phenomenal to the objective and measurable… In my own research, a new picture is taking shape in which conscious experience is seen as deeply grounded in how brains and bodies work together to maintain physiological integrity – to stay alive. In this story, we are conscious ‘beast-machines’, and I hope to show you why.


ANIL SETH, “THE REAL PROBLEM” AT AEON (NOVEMBER 2, 2016) 

So how is it that we “conscious ‘beast machines’” are conscious? Seth: 

To answer this, we can appeal to the same process that underlies other forms of perception. The brain makes its ‘best guess’, based on its prior beliefs or expectations, and the available sensory data. In this case, the relevant sensory data include signals specific to the body, as well as the classic senses such as vision and touch. These bodily senses include proprioception, which signals the body’s configuration in space, and interoception, which involves a raft of inputs that convey information from inside the body, such as blood pressure, gastric tension, heartbeat and so on. The experience of embodied selfhood depends on predictions about body-related causes of sensory signals across interoceptive and proprioceptive channels, as well as across the classic senses. Our experiences of being and having a body are ‘controlled hallucinations’ of a very distinctive kind.


ANIL SETH, “THE REAL PROBLEM” AT AEON (NOVEMBER 2, 2016) 

The Essence of His Theory 

There’s a lot more to Seth’s rather verbose essay, but the essence of his theory of consciousness is that the brain integrates a cacophony of sensory inputs to fabricate an explanation for perceived reality — a “controlled hallucination” — that we call consciousness. This view, that consciousness is, in one sense or another, the consequence of massive parallel processing going on in neural circuits in the brain, is common among modern neuroscientists. But it can’t be true.


To see why, consider the neurological consequences of split brain surgery and the congenital brain condition called hydranencephaly.


In split brain surgery, neurosurgeons cut the massive bundle of nerve fibers connecting the cerebral hemispheres in order to lessen the propagation of seizures in patients with epilepsy. The two brain hemispheres are disconnected — information from one hemisphere cannot readily be transmitted to the other. This radical disconnection of the brain hemispheres causes massive interference with “sensory signals across interoceptive and proprioceptive channels, as well as across the classic senses” but, contrary to what Seth’s theory seems to predict, there is no impairment of consciousness whatsoever. Patients with split brains (I have performed the surgery myself) have very subtle perceptual disabilities of which they are almost always unaware, and there is no impairment in consciousness. 

Subject to the Scalpel? 

Neuroscientist Yair Pinto calls this split brain state “divided perception but undivided consciousness”. It is difficult to reconcile Seth’s notion of consciousness as “controlled hallucination” as a result of massively integrated perceptions with the full preservation of consciousness following cutting the brain hemispheres in half. Consciousness is not, in this circumstance, subject to the scalpel, as Seth’s materialist theory implies it must be.


An even more intractable problem for Seth’s “controlled hallucination” theory is hydranencephaly. Hydranencephaly is a condition in which children are often born without brain hemispheres. The cause is usually a massive intrauterine stroke that destroys all of the brain above the brainstem. Nearly all of the perceptual circuits on which Seth’s theory depends are not merely cut, but are completely destroyed, yet children with hydranencephaly are fully conscious.


Read the rest at Mind Matters News, published by Discovery Institute’s Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.