Sunday, 26 May 2024
Saturday, 25 May 2024
On the myth of the gay gene.
No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality
Massive Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior
Analysis of half a million people suggests genetics may have a limited contribution to sexual orientation
By Sara Reardon on August 29, 2019
Few aspects of human biology are as complex—or politically fraught—as sexual orientation. A clear genetic link would suggest that gay people are “born this way,” as opposed to having made a lifestyle choice. Yet some fear that such a finding could be misused “cure” homosexuality, and most research teams have shied away from tackling the topic.
Now, a new study claims to dispel the notion that a single gene or handful of genes make a person prone to same-sex behavior. The analysis, which examined the genomes of nearly half a million men and women, found that although genetics are certainly involved in who people choose to have sex with, there are no specific genetic predictors. Yet some researchers question whether the analysis, which looked at genes associated with sexual activity rather than attraction, can draw any real conclusions about sexual orientation.
“The message should remain the same that this is a complex behavior that genetics definitely plays a part in,” said study co-author Fah Sathirapongsasuti, a computational biologist at genetic testing company andMe in Mountain View, Calif., during a press conference. The handful of genetic studies conducted in the past few decades have looked at only a few hundred individuals at most—and almost exclusively men. Other studies have linked sexual orientation with environmental factors such as hormone exposure before birth and having older brothers.
In the new study, a team led by Brendan Zietsch of the University of Queensland, Australia, mined several massive genome data banks, including that of 23andMe and the UK Biobank (23andMe did not fund the research). They asked more than 477,000 participants whether they had ever had sex with someone of the same sex, and also questions about sexual fantasies and the degree to which they identified as gay or straight.
The researchers found five single points in the genome that seemed to be common among people who had had at least one same-sex experience. Two of these genetic markers sit close to genes linked to sex hormones and to smell—both factors that may play a role in sexual attraction. But taken together, these five markers explained less than 1 percent of the differences in sexual activity among people in the study. When the researchers looked at the overall genetic similarity of individuals who had had a same-sex experience, genetics seemed to account for between 8 and 25 percent of the behavior. The rest was presumably a result of environmental or other biological influences. The findings were published Thursday in Science.
Despite the associations, the authors say that the genetic similarities still cannot show whether a given individual is gay. “It’s the end of the ’gay gene,’” says Eric Vilain, a geneticist at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study.
The research has limitations: almost all of the participants were from the U.S. or Europe, and the individuals also tended to be older—51 years old on average in the 23andMe sample and at least 40 in the UK Biobank sample.
Still, researchers welcome the data. “A lot of people want to understand the biology of homosexuality, and science has lagged behind that human interest,” says William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who also was not involved in the work. “It’s been a taboo topic, and now that we’re getting information I think it’s going to blossom.”
The study will not be the last word on the vexing question of what causes homosexuality, however. In 1993 geneticist Dean Hamer of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and his colleagues published a paper suggesting that an area on the X chromosome called Xq28 could contain a “gay gene.” But other studies, including the new paper, found no such link, and Sathirapongsasuti says that the new study is the final nail in the coffin for Xq28 as a cause of same-sex attraction.
But Hamer, now retired, disagrees. His study, which analysed the genomes of 40 pairs of gay brothers, looked exclusively at people who identified as homosexual. He sees the new paper as an analysis of risky behavior or openness to experience, noting that participants who engaged in at least one same-sex experience were also more likely to report having smoked marijuana and having more sexual partners overall. Hamer says that the findings do not reveal any biological pathways for sexual orientation. “I’m glad they did it and did a big study, but it doesn’t point us where to look.”
Rice and Vilain agree that the conclusion is unclear. A more detailed questionnaire that looks at more aspects of sexuality and environmental influences would allow the researchers to better pinpoint the roots of attraction.
The authors say that they did see links between sexual orientation and sexual activity, but concede that the genetic links do not predict orientation. “I think it’s true we’re capturing part of that risk-taking behavior,” Sathirapongsasuti says, but the genetic links still suggested that same-sex behavior is related to attraction.
Nevertheless, Hamer and others praise the new contribution to a field that suffers from a dearth of good studies. “I hope it will be the first of many to come.”
More on Dawinists' we don't know what it does therefore it does nothing argument.
Did Dr. Dan Make Us Change Our Position on Junk DNA?
Last week, I published a review of Casey Luskin’s recent debate with Rutgers University professor Daniel Stern Cardinale (“Dr. Dan”) of the Creation Myths YouTube channel. I noted that Luskin did a good job during the debate of refuting Dr. Dan’s main arguments that most of our genome is junk — and I also pointed out that after the debate we posted a follow-up article that refuted his claim that “degraded” LINE elements cannot be functional. Now, Dr. Dan is claiming that he forced Discovery Institute to “change” its take on the percent of the genome that is functional. This claim is totally false and it perhaps reflects Dr. Dan’s wish to find a positive spin on the substance of what happened during the debate.
We’ll get to that in a moment, but first, let’s recap what happened during the debate.
Point 1: Luskin Refutes Dr. Dan’s Main Argument
The first of Dr. Dan’s two primary arguments during the debate was that most of the transcribed DNA documented by ENCODE cannot be functional since 70 percent of the coverage is transcribed at a rate of less than one transcript per cell. Luskin refuted this argument during the debate, making two main points. First, this statistic is an average — and, therefore, a mean of one transcript per cell does not imply that every cell has only one transcript or less. Second, there are plenty of examples of cases where there is a low copy number of RNA transcripts that are nonetheless functional. See my previous article for details. I observed that it was curious that, after these rejoinders were made by Casey Luskin, Dr. Dan never revisited this argument throughout the remainder of the debate.
Point 2: We Refute Dr. Dan’s Fallback Argument
After abandoning his first argument, Dr. Dan’s then fell back to a secondary argument — namely that large percentages of our genome are composed of “degraded” repetitive DNA which he claimed are “absolutely not” functional. Well, during the debate Luskin gave examples of “degraded” repetitive DNA that can be functional, and after the debate Richard Sternberg, Luskin, and I co-authored an article that reported over 50 peer-reviewed papers showing that what Dr. Dan calls “degraded” LINE elements can be functional. The only thing that Dr. Dan’s secondary argument showed is that evolutionists continue to assume that if they do not understand what a particular genetic element is doing then this constitutes grounds for thinking that it is functionless.
Did We Change Our Arguments in Response to Dr. Dan?
The short answer is no, we didn’t change our arguments in response to Dr. Dan because he did not raise any points that warranted our changing anything. To appreciate why this is the case, one first must appreciate our position.
In Casey Luskin’s opening statement in the debate — before Dr. Dan had made any arguments — Luskin fully acknowledged that there’s much we don’t know about the genome. He stated the following:
So again we’re going to deep dive into this today but I think it’s good to start with some points of agreement. I fully agree with Dr. Dan, and I’m assuming this is what you think Dr. Dan so forgive me if I’m misrepresenting you, but I thought these are reasonable things — that there is still a lot we don’t know about the genome. And I agree with you that probably some of it is going to turn out to be “junk”. I also agree with you that there’s much transcription going on where we still don’t know what it’s for. Some of it could even be quote-unquote stochastic. But I certainly agree that there’s a lot we don’t know, and that science will reveal much to us in the coming years.
That was from Luskin’s opening statement, before Dr. Dan had made any substantive points. And it was entirely consistent with what Luskin has said in the past. For example in a paper last year in the journal Religions, Luskin stated the following about junk DNA
Junk DNA genetic arguments for common human–ape ancestry have also come under significant critique in recent years due to the discovery of mass-functionality for non-coding or “junk” DNA in the human genome. A major 2012 Nature paper by the ENCODE consortium reported “biochemical functions for 80%” of the human genome (ENCODE Project Consortium 2012, p. 57). Lead ENCODE scientists predicted that with further research, “80 percent will go to 100” since “almost every nucleotide is associated with a function.” (Yong 2012). In the wake of this research, the journal Science published an article titled “ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA” which stated that these findings “sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases” (Pennisi 2012, p. 1159). Evidence of functions for non-coding DNA has continued to mount at a high pace. A 2021 article in Nature reported that over 130,000 specific “genomic elements, previously called junk DNA” have seen specific functions identified (Gates et al. 2021, p. 215), followed by a paper in Genome Biology and Evolution which concluded, “The days of ‘junk DNA’ are over” (Stitz et al. 2021, p. 11). There is still much we do not understand about the genome and there are many specific genetic elements for which no function has yet been discovered. Nonetheless, this evidence suggests a strong trendline in the research literature away from non-functionality for “junk” DNA.
Luskin later wrote the following in that paper:
Again, it is true that there is still much we do not know about junk DNA and there are many specific genetic elements (including pseudogenes and ERVs) for which specific functions have not yet been discovered. However, recent trends in research show that far more functionality is being discovered than was anticipated, leading to the possibility of mass functionality for junk DNA. As a 2023 academic book on RNA states:
“While the story is still unfolding, we conclude that the genomes of humans and other complex organisms are not full of junk but rather are highly compact information suites that are largely devoted to the specification of regulatory RNAs. These RNAs drive the trajectories of differentiation and development, underpin brain function and convey transgenerational memory of experience, much of it contrary to long-held conceptions of genetic programming and the dogmas of evolutionary theory.”
(Mattick and Amaral 2023, p. vii)
So Luskin has been very clear that there’s a lot we do not know about the genome — including many specific genetic elements for which we have not yet discovered their specific functions — and much remains to be discovered. But we do have evidence that over 80 percent of the genome is transcribed, and that’s evidence of function. Plus, the numerous scientific papers discovering function for “junk” DNA show the trendline of the research strongly implies the large bulk of the genome is functional.
Does Lack of Knowledge of Specific Function Imply Junk?
Does our lack of knowledge of the specific function for a genetic element imply it is probably junk? Again, the answer is no.
I also noted in my review that “Though Dr. Dan is correct that we currently know of specific functions for significantly less than half of the genome, this is hardly a strong argument for supposing that the ‘dark regions’ of the genome are non-functional ‘junk’ — particularly given the trends in the scientific literature over the last couple of decades — and the fact that the great majority of our genome is transcribed.” Dr. Dan has now put out a video titled “I Made Discovery Institute Change Their Junk DNA Argument.” In the video, Dr. Dan quoted my statement above, together with Luskin’s remark from his concluding statement: “I mean it could be another hundred years before we cross that 50 percent threshold, but I predict we’re going to get there and we’re going to go above that.” Dr. Dan contends that this is a significant shift in our position on the subject of junk DNA.
In support of his contention, Dr. Dan cites a few past articles from Evolution News, which he contends are at odds with this statement. Here is a list of the relevant quotes:
Casey Luskin, on March 28, 2024:
“…the concept of junk DNA — long espoused by evolutionists — has overall been refuted by mountains of data and is no longer even considered valid by many biologists.”
“A major Nature paper by the ENCODE consortium reported evidence of ‘biochemical functions for 80%’ of the human genome. Lead ENCODE scientists predicted that with further research, ’80 percent will go to 100’ since ‘almost every nucleotide is associated with a function.’”
Evolution News, on August 4, 2020:
“Skipper says it was ‘striking’ to find that they were able to assign a ‘biochemical function’ to 80 percent of the genome…”
Casey Luskin, on July 9, 2015:
“I should note that for my part, I think that the percentage of our genome that is functional is probably very high, even higher than 80%.”
“ENCODE critics who say the genome is junky rely primarily on theory. ENCODE proponents who say the genome is functional rely primarily on data.”
Dr. Dan contends that my (and Luskin’s) statements that we do not know the functions of significantly more than half of the genome are incompatible with the statements given above. This is not the case because, as noted, not knowing the specific function does not mean we don’t have evidence of function. Indeed, Luskin clearly stated during the debate that we are well over the 50 percent threshold” when it comes to evidence of genome function. As Luskin argued, over 80 percent of the genome is known to be transcribed into RNA, and it has long been our contention that the fact that over 80 percent of the genome is transcribed is prima facie evidence of function. (ENCODE only studied about 147 cell types, leading to the prediction Luskin quoted that as more cell types are studied “80 percent will go to 100.”) This does not mean that we know the specific function of all of the sequences that are transcribed, but again we don’t need to know the specific function to have evidence for some real function. Assigning specific functions to DNA sequences is not the only sort of evidence that may be adduced for functionality. Transcription itself is evidence that there is a function. Indeed, as Luskin noted during the debate, an ID-friendly RNA biologist at an Ivy League school told him that in their field, the dominant thinking in the field holds: “If it’s transcribed, it has a function.”
Moreover, the trends in the scientific literature — documenting more and more function of the dark regions of the genome — give us strong reason for confidence that those trends will continue. Thus, it’s not at all hard to envision virtually all of these transcribed regions have a specific function that is just waiting for us to discover.
The only statement listed above that might be construed as being at odds with this is the quote from the 2020 Evolution News article. However, here is the statement in context:
Skipper says it was “striking” to find that they were able to assign a “biochemical function” to 80 percent of the genome: striking, because “not such a long time ago, we still considered that a vast proportion of the human genome was simply junk.” Birney comments, “It’s very hard to get over the density of information” in the genome. They found places that are “much more complex” than expected, and loci thought to be completely silent are actually “teeming with life, teeming with things going on; we still really don’t understand that…”
Neither Casey Luskin nor I wrote those words, nor did any Discovery Institute author. Indeed, those quotes are pulled from a video from Nature. Skipper’s comment that they are “able to assign a ‘biochemical function’ to 80 percent of the genome” is clumsily worded. However, Birney’s statement (also quoted in the Evolution News article) adds more nuance: “It’s like a jungle of stuff out there. There are things that we thought we understood and yet it’s much, much more complex. And then places of the genome that we thought were completely silent and they’re teeming with life. They’re teeming with things going on. We still really don’t understand that.” Thus, Birney appears to agree that we do not know what is going on in many of these regions, though we nonetheless have evidence of function. This supports what we are saying about the genome, not Dr. Dan’s view.
Of course, Dr. Dan objects to our contention that transcription constitutes prima facie evidence of function, since the mean level of transcription for much of the transcribed regions is less than a single transcript per cell. But we rebutted that argument during the debate, and it is curious that Dr. Dan still (even in his latest video) has not addressed, nor even remarked on, our rebuttal to his objection — that this is only an average and that even low copy number transcripts can be functional.
Dr. Dan Should Stop Projecting His Own Views Upon Us
To conclude, we have not changed our position on junk DNA as a result of Dr. Dan’s debate with Casey Luskin. Luskin’s comment about the “50 percent threshold” pertained to our not having yet identified the specific function for 50 percent of the genome — he was NOT claiming that there is no evidence of function for 50 percent of the genome, and he was certainly NOT conceding that there is evidence that 50 percent of the genome is junk. Instead, as we have noted, because over 80 percent of the genome is transcribed, this provides prima facie evidence that at least 80 percent of the genome is functional even if we have not yet identified the specific function. In fact, Luskin stated this upfront in his opening statement — fully acknowledging that there is much we have yet to learn about the genome.
In this debate, Dr. Dan is the only party who is arguing that if we have not identified the specific function, then even if it is transcribed, we are safe to assume it is probably junk. He seems to think that if we concede that we don’t know the specific function, that therefore this means it is junk. Dr. Dan must be projecting his own views upon us because he is the only party here who thinks like that. We certainly don’t. We are not arguing that way because it is a science-stopping argument. We believe that the evidence of mass-transcription of the genome plus the trendline of the research indicate that the vast majority of the genome is functional. Dr. Dan is welcome to disagree with us, but he should not impose his own science-stopping views upon us
Against Nincsnevem ad pluribus VI
"as his being prototokos from the dead must mean that he is numbered among the resurrected"
However, Col. 1:18 contains a certain 'ek' preposition, which here means "from," "of," thus "among," and the same role can be filled by "en" in Romans 8:29. Therefore, in these cases, there is an actual inclusion in the given group, which does not occur in Colossians 1:15.
Me:I quoted revelation ch.1:5 and not colossians ch.1:18 because I was aware of this particular fudge by trinitarians
The resurrection is a creative act or more specifically a recreation of what has ceased to exist. JEHOVAH is unchangingly the immortal God hence can never under any possible circumstance die and thus be resurrected
Roman's ch.1:23NIV"and exchanged the glory of the IMMORTAL God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."
Thus Christ being firstborn of those resurrected clearly disqualifies him from being the most high God
The categories of immortal God and mortal man are mutually exclusive no single person can simultaneously belong to both categories according to scripture.
Numbers ch.23:19NKHV"God is NOT a man, that He should lie,
NOR a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"
As JEHOVAH is unchanging not here means NEVER Machi ch.3:6
"...in scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION the protokis...."
This certain "protokis" is surely some kind of crowing, but πρωτόκτιστος (correctly: prōtóktistos) is found NOT in the Scripture, but in Clement of Alexandria's work "Stromata," and he does not specifically refer to the Son/Logos, but to Wisdom. Neither Clement (nor any other Church Father) wrote that the Father created/made the Son.
The AI apparently realized you were out of your depth and decided to give you a hand .I of course meant prototokos is always a member of the set of which he is prototokos whether term is being used literally or figuratively
"But neither are they less to be blamed who think that the Son was a creation, and decided that the Lord was made just as one of those things which really were made; whereas the divine declarations testify that He was begotten, as is fitting and proper, but not that He was created or made. On the contrary, for example, Dionysius of Alexandria specifically writes in 262 AD (thus LONG before the Council of Nicaea):
"But neither are they less to be condemned who think that the Son was a creation, and decided that the Lord was made just as one of those things which really were made; whereas the divine declarations testify that He was begotten, as is fitting and proper, but not that He was created or made. [...] Finally, any one may read in many parts of the divine utterances that the Son is said to have been begotten, but never that He was made. From which considerations, they who dare to say that His divine and inexplicable generation was a creation, are openly convicted of thinking that which is false concerning the generation of the Lord."
Me:The last Apostle John mentioned that already in his time there was a multiplying of false teachers see 1John ch.2:18 and predicted that once he as the last the 12 passed on things would get worse the last hour being mentioned here is the end of the Apostolic era. The scriptures are really the only safe guide
Nincs:"If you can find a single exception sola scriptura I promise to convert to Catholicism."
I appreciate the humor, but I think converting to Catholicism is not primarily advisable based on this kind of biblical ping-pong, but rather due to the untenability of the principles of "sola Scriptura," the "Great Apostasy," and "the modern restoration of true Christianity." Incidentally, Jewish rabbinical writers called Yahweh Bekoroh Shel Olam (בכורו של עולם), which practically means the same as what Apostle Paul used here: the Firstborn of the world. In a Jewish context, therefore, this title actually proves his divinity, not his createdness. Read this: https://justpaste.it/cs2gp
Me:And it is just as well too because your doctrine finds NO basis in scripture I actually appreciate the fact that Catholics openly admit that their supposedly Christian dogma are not actually based on the scriptures. It's a much more honest position than that of certain protestants who like to pretend that doctrines like the trinity or unconditional immortality can be demonstrated sola scriptura.
Nincs:"if the God and Father of Jesus is the ONLY true God then only the God and Father of Jesus is THE true God basic logic which trumps your church councils demand"
Okay, then from "there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1Cor. 8:6) it follows that the Father cannot be Lord, congratulations :) Read my comments as well: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/09/alone-or-only-how-theyre-construed.html
Me:You keep urging me to read your comments when it's clear that you are not reading mine with any focus. As I explained by way of an illustration you are making a category error.
There are many Gods and many Lords but there is a category of God(i.e the most high God) in which only the God and Father Jesus belongs.
1Corinthians ch.8:6NKJV"6yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."
The God and Father of Jesus is the only God who is the ultimate source of all the power and wisdom in the creation. He alone is autotheos he is the only valid self appointed Lord as well. Every other valid God or Lord is derived from his own Godhood and Lordship including christ's there is also a category of Lord to which only Christ belongs he is JEHOVAH'S Highest ranked representative.
In the U.S there many presidencies but there is a category of presidency that is higher and than all others this category of presidency is held by a single officeholder at any given time. Same is true of the divine office there is just one perpetual officeholder that is the God and Father of Jesus.
Nincs:"Jesus' who was MADE Lord by his Lord"According to his human nature, the Son received the name Lord only upon his resurrection and ascension, but according to his divine nature, he has been Lord from eternity, as John 20:28, Luke 1:43 already refer to him as Lord before this.
Me:All irrelevant you assert that his Lordship is from eternity but don't demonstrate it
John Ch.20:28 is after his resurrection and of course he was only christ and lord prophetically at Luke ch.1:43.
No doubt he was a prince in his prehuman existence but this would be at his God and father's pleasure.
John ch.8:29NIV"The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”
Nincs:"what kind of practices ought not to be tolerated in his church"
Anyone who has not been baptized is not a member of the Church and is not under the jurisdiction of Church discipline. Therefore, the unbaptized Constantine could not have been reprimanded by the Church."
No doubt but the point is that Constantine did not join the church because his conscience won't allow it. I can form an opinion of the genuineness of his commitment based on that fact. And he certainly had no business preaching sermons in the assembly or presiding over gatherings of the aldermen in the church.
Against Nincsnevem ad pluribus V
Me:Colossians ch.1:15KJV"5Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: "
Whether literally or figuratively the prototokos is ALWAYS a member of the set. Thus this statement makes Christ a member of the creation.
Just as his being prototokos from the dead must mean that he is numbered among the resurrected colossians ch. Revelation Ch.1:5KJV"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood," And it matters not that the scripture says that All were created "dia" the prototokos any more than it days that all are resurrected by the prototokos of the resurrected . To say that a servant of JEHOVAH is speaking with the voice of God is to say that he is not speaking in his own authority power or wisdom but with that which he has received from his lord. Therefore he is definitely a subordinate JEHOVAH is self- sufficient and always acts and speaks solely of his own authority. That is why would NEVER read any where in scripture of JEHOVAH Speaking with God's voice that would be ridiculously unworthy of mention. But the fact that the author felt the need to mention it proves that the Logos is subordinate to the one who gave him leave to speak with such authority
This my post to which nincsnevem is supposedly responding ,I will demonstrate from an unabridged copy of Mr.nincsnevems response that he is in fact just another strawman bully.
Nincs:"In the Bible, birth language ALWAYS implies creation"
No, the New Testament consistently distinguishes between the birth/begetting of the Son and the creation of creatures, and it also states that this occurred before all ages (aions). Therefore, the Nicene Creed includes the phrases, "Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons)" and "begotten, not made." The question remains, why do you insist on this CREATEDNESS when there is already a specific term for the Son's origin from the Father, which is precisely what is NOT stated.
Me: you will notice this pattern with Mr.nevem's responses he always asserts he NEVER Demonstrates and this claim(that birth language is never used to refer to JEHOVAH'S Creative activity should be easily demonstrable.
Let's go into the scripture and see what is actually the case.
Acts Ch.17:28NKJV"for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’"
Birth language clearly being used to refer to giving existence to another at a particular point in time.
Psalm ch.90:2NIV"Before the mountains were born
or you brought forth the whole world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
This precedent is without exception and given the extremely patriarchal culture of the time and place how could it be otherwise
What about Jesus himself:
Acts ch.13:33NIV"he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
“ ‘You are my son;
tTODAY have become your fFATHER’
He is here shown as begotten at a particular point in time and that his being begotten means the same thing that it does for the rest of JEHOVAH'S Children a receiving of life and form that he did not have previously. There us no such thing as an eternal begetting.
Nincs:"Whenever JEHOVAH acts Dia another"
It is not "Jehovah" who acts 'dia' through the Son, because the New Testament never speaks of "Jehovah," only of the Father, and the Father indeed acts 'dia' through the Son. However, this does not exclude the Son from being an active participant in creation or from being truly God.
Me:I'm going to have to go with the scriptures over you on this one nincs:
John ch.8:54NIV"Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
Acts ch 3:13NIV"The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. .."
JEHOVAH is the God Lord and Father of Jesus the empty protestations of your church councils notwithstanding.
"Dia" indicates subordination Moses had a very active role in revealing the law to Israel but he was not the source of the law.
John ch.1:17NIV"For the law was given through(Dia) Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. "
The power and wisdom manfest in the creation has its source in JEHOVAH not the secondary instruments through which he acts even those consciously involved in the creation. Our parents conscious decision resulted in our being here yet they are not co-creators or to be regarded as of equal importance re: our creation
Nincs:"the other is never the source of the power or wisdom"
Let me teach you something new that might be surprising: according to Nicene Christology, the Son receives his existence and divinity from the Father. Moreover, the Council of Florence explicitly stated as dogma: "Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." Therefore, it is worth thoroughly researching what you are attempting to refute.
Me:All this means is that the God and Father of Jesus ALONE Meets the biblical standard of true Godhood being totally self-sufficient in all respects.
Roman's ch.11:35NIV"“Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?”
It's a rhetorical question the most high God is in no ones debt.
Nincs:"the prototokos is ALWAYS a member of the set"
No, "prototokos" belongs to the category or group from which it descend from. Robert Keay, Ph.D. writes:"...the Watchtower argues that 'the firstbornof' always indicates that the firstborn is part of the named group. That is, the relationship between the two terms involves basic similarity and equality as parts and whole. For example, the firstborn of an animal is an animal, the firstborn of Pharaoh is part of Pharaoh’s family. The Watchtower wants the Witness to think that the firstborn of creation must be similar to and part of the creation, hence a created being. Again, this reasoning is seriously flawed. When the argument is taken to its logical conclusion, its flaws are obvious. The phrase 'firstborn of Pharaoh' cannot mean simply that the child is similar to Pharaoh as part of the Pharaoh family. If the firstborn is part of Pharaoh’s family, it is only because Pharaoh is the father of the firstborn. Likewise, the firstborn of an animal is part of that animal group because an animal is the parent of the firstborn. One cannot separate being 'part of' from its actual cause: giving birth, fathering, or mothering. When the Watchtower argument is applied to Jesus as 'firstborn of creation', the fallacy is revealed. The argument becomes absurd. If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, according to the Watchtower’s reasoning, then creation is the parent of Jesus; that is, creation gives birth to Jesus. If the Watchtower argument is valid, then Creation truly is 'Mother Earth.' Even the Watchtower would not want to believe this, but the logic of their argument demands it, thus showing its absurdity. Obviously, the phrase 'firstborn of creation' is not being used in the way the Watchtower claims. The phrases 'the firstborn of' that the Witnesses cite are not analogous with Paul’s statement that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. The Apostle does not reason as the Watchtower does. But the reason the Watchtower must resort to a fallacious argument is that they fail to understand the actual usage of the term in the Old Testament. As shown above, the 'birth order' meaning of firstborn fades as the 'birthright' significance takes on greater meaning, culminating in its Messianic connotations. The Watchtower’s attempts to limit the meaning to 'birth order' cannot be justified."
Mr.nincsnevem is apparently incapable of thinking for himself if you read my original response above you will see that it is all but totally ignored by Mr. Nevem's excuse for a response. I mentioned for instance that prototokos is being used figuratively at colossians. So creation is not literally a parent. Anymore than the resurrection is literally a parent in Jesus illustration.
Luke ch.20:36NIV"and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection."
Similarly the Logos is the firstborn of JEHOVAH by being firstborn of creation.
Also firstborn is used in the Bible with reference to relationship to kin .
Revelation ch.1:5NIV"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, "
He is definitely the first to be resurrected to holiness and he is kin to the resurrected.
I am forced to repeat myself because Mr.nevem insists on ignoring my actual quote for one on colossians 1:18 which he imagines he can win with some kind of made up grammar rule
All who are begotten of God are so via creation but the majority of the creation is created indirectly through prior creations either as raw materials or secondary causes
Isaiah ch.54:16NIV"“See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to wreak havoc;"
Well not directly the blacksmith and the destroyer undoubtedly had a Father and mother yet because the power wisdom manifest in their form came from JEHOVAH as the ultimate source he can take credit for their existence.
It would be different with the firstborn of creation his begetting would be unique.
Hence he could poetically be referred to as the only begotten.
Friday, 24 May 2024
Wednesday, 22 May 2024
Against nincsnevem ad pluribus IV
Nincs:"For future reference the sermon on the Mount starts with the beatitudes at Matthew 5 and ends at Matthew 7."
You don't say? The point here is that the teachings of the Sermon can be divided into general precepts and specific counsels. Obedience to the general precepts is essential for salvation, but obedience to the counsels is only necessary for perfection. The great mass of the population needs only to concern themselves with the precepts; the counsels must be followed by a pious few such as the clergy and monks. This theory was initiated by St. Augustine and later fully developed by St. Thomas Aquinas, though an early version of it is cited in Didache 6:2, "For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able", and reflected in the Apostolic Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:19–21). Geoffrey Chaucer also did much to popularize this view among speakers of English with his Canterbury Tales (Wife of Bath's Prologue, v. 117-118).
Christ point is that the whole of the Sermon on the mount is instructive to every sincere servant of JEHOVAH.
Matthew Ch.7:24-27NKJV"“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
26“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
Note please "whoever" "everyone" "these sayings" the whole of the Sermon the mount is wisdom for the one loyal to JEHOVAH.
In as much as this is a discussion about whether the Christian is free to slaughter is brother servant of JEHOVAH so long as some politician demands it and his brother happens to live in another land. I certainly understand why Christendom's clergy would not want rank and file members thinking too much on the sermon on the mount.
Nincs:"we testify that these have proved superior to counsels of the churches of Christendom."
What humility! This boast reminds me of Luke 18:11 and a bit of Donatist-Cathar morality.
The "Boast"would be in the real author of the text the Lord JEHOVAH unlike the seeming implications of some Catholics' claims we do not claim to have given the world the Bible(a claim very humbly made no doubt).
We don't regret in the slightest that with JEHOVAH'S unfailing help we have kept our hands free from the blood of all men. And your mindless sloganeering provides no basis for a reconsideration.
Nincs:"what is objectionable re:Matthew ch.19:12"
My objection is not to the verse itself but to the idea of making evangelical counsels into commandments for the entire Church. This also applies to the Sermon on the Mount.
"It's not a mandate it's wise counsel."
That's what I argued, and this is also true for "turning the other cheek", etetc.
Me:If we've both agreed that the sermon on the mount is wise counsel why would anyone choose the folly of ignoring it. See Matthew ch.7:24-27
Nincs:"my chosen weapon is ALWAYS the sword of the spirit JEHOVAH'S Word none of these dead philosophers impress me"
Earlier, Anonymous and others referenced the practice of the early Christian church. It is entirely legitimate to cite research on this topic and what can be determined from the sources. In summary, the findings do not support the idea that the Church held the same view on military service as modern JWs up until Constantine's conversion.
"I don't know what could have possessed you..."
With the utmost respect, I ask you to moderate your tone. Instead of accusing me of demonic possession for offering counterarguments, please read: Proverbs 15:1, 2 Timothy 2:25, Titus 3:2.
Me:Physician heal yourself. All we ever get from you is industrial strength condescension.
Matthew Ch.7:5NIV"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
Perhaps it's time to review your attitude toward the sermon on the mount( well at least this verse).
Against nincsnevem ad pluribus III
Nincs: It seems you missed that this comment was intended for Anonymous, but I'll respond to your post anyway.
"A practicing Jew would certainly object to the idolatry that serving in the Roman army at the time"
Exactly, this was the real issue, not military service itself! Just as the Jewish residents of the Roman Empire avoided the Roman army for THIS reason, the early Christian Church had similar reservations. However, once this profession no longer involved idolatrous rituals, there would be no objection to it.
Me: all war involves idolatry because we are call upon to endanger fellow subjects(and prospective subjects) of JEHOVAH'S Kingdom. Thus disregarding the higher allegiance we owe to JEHOVAH'S Kingdom. The hyperpolitical mindset that your church has implanted in you would make that difficult to appreciate. If as you claim true one corner of your mouth you acknowledge the higher allegiance you owe to God's kingdom . You will see how impossible it is to menace the lives and property of your fellow loyalists(or even prospective loyalists) of said Kingdom as your utterances out the other side of your mouth allow.
1John Ch.4:20NIV"Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen."
This not the arcane mystical type of agape your church practices which permits the mass fratricide all of Christendom has become infamous for. This is the agape described by scriptures such as
1Corinthians Ch.13:4-7NIV"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."
nincs:"serving in the various armies [...] would be a flagrant violation of the higher allegiance we owe to that kingdom."
However, this is just proof by assertion. You have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that this would indeed be a violation.
"The Christian simply cannot pick up the sword in the service of the Imperial or national ambitions of any prince of the present age."
Me: creative use of ellipses the reader will note that I have quoted Mr.nincsnevem in toto, thus I have permitted my readership to make up its own mind as to whether I have misrepresented him or not. So I'm going to quote again
Revelation Ch.13:10NKJV"He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the [e]patience and the faith of the saints."
I will here also recall the principle of the higher allegiance owed to JEHOVAH'S Kingdom which would logically mean that loyalists of that kingdom cannot engage in deadly conflict with each other no matter which politician demands it acts ch.5:29.
Nincs:While an imperialist or chauvinist war cannot be considered a "just war" (and I have not defended such wars!), it is primarily the responsibility of the "higher authorities" to ensure that the decision to go to war meets the "jus ad bellum" requirements. Citizens only have the right to refuse participation in clearly unjust wars. In such cases, it is indeed a moral requirement to "put down the sword." However, you are engaging in a straw man argument here, as I did not defend participation in such unjust conflicts.
Revelation 13:10 does not support your stance. Just before this verse, the persecution of Christians is mentioned (v. 7); the verse is intended to comfort Christians by assuring them that those who imprison or kill them will be punished just as severely as they treated their fellow humans. Christians should believe that all their sufferings will be turned to good by the Lord. The context is about urging patience in the face of Roman persecution, which has no relevance to our debate.
The principles in JEHOVAH'S Word apply in all times and places, there is no sunset clause in the command. Our response to state sponsored suppression must NEVER be to respond in kind. And we definitely never want to be instruments of violence. Brother is never to slaughter brother(or even prospective brother) politics has so divided your church that there is no international brotherhood among you that alone is a disqualifier.
Nincs:I did not claim that God "needs human help to deal with his enemies the persecutors of his people." By this logic, doctors would also be unnecessary since God "needs no human help to heal diseases."
"The sovereigns of this age demand the highest allegiance even above God."
Oh, really? Where? Perhaps in North Korea or Meiji-era Japan, but I don't know of any modern leaders demanding divine status.
You implied it,the wars waged by human sovereigns tend to multiply injustice rather than the reverse. The suggestion that refusing to take sides in the conflicts among princes of the present age who are principally concerned with their own sovereignty, leaves one open to blame for failure of JEHOVAH'S Kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven is blasphemous.
Daniel Ch.2:34NKJV"You watched while a stone was cut out WITHOUT HANDS, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.
JEHOVAH'S Kingdom is both set up and triumphs over its enemies without human help or agency.
And your claim that you are unaware that the military commanders of the present age expect total allegiance sounds incredibly naive of course in my actual post I acknowledged that they would hardly ever openly admit this(more creative license with my words). Do you think that if a military recruiter suspected that a prospective recruit was more loyal to some clergy he viewed as God's representative than to the nation's military commanders he would recruit that person?
"...this commitment to in effect put the human sovereign in the place of God is the meaning of your pledge. So if you take the pledge of military service with some other intention you are in effect lying."
Oh, so you've elevated yourself to the role of examining hearts and minds to judge how others perceive their service? Make no mistake: I am not a soldier, but I do not believe that those who are have elevated the state to the role of God.
The fact that you are expected to battle fellow believers proves my point. They are wearing their hearts on their sleeves ,I don't need to be JEHOVAH'S Angel to read it
Nincs:"Your abject biblical illiteracy is showing what does Matthew 19:12,19:22,20:27 have to do with the sermon on the mount."
Where did I claim that these verses are part of the Sermon on the Mount? I cited them as examples of evangelical counsels, which Christ introduces with "If you want to be perfect..." while introducing the commandments like this: "if you want to enter life, keep the commandments." (Mt 19:17)
Well let's see what Christ has to say on the matter he closes his sermon on the mount with.
matthew ch.7:24-27NIV“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash"
Personally I would rather be like the Wise man in this scenario.
Against nincsnevem ad pluribus II
Nincs: "Then why did Jesus not? Why do the apostles not?"
Meaning what? That they did not serve in the Roman army? Firstly, because it was not their calling, for example, Jesus was a 'tekton' (artisan or craftsman), not a soldier, and His primary mission was to proclaim the gospel and offer Himself as a sacrifice. The apostles also had civilian occupations. Secondly, they were Jews, not Roman citizens, and Jews rarely served in the Roman army because their monotheism, observance of the Sabbath, abstinence from pork, and other cultural and religious laws made it difficult for them to fulfill the duties of a Roman soldier. Therefore, for instance, the Jews of Ephesus were exempted from recruitment into the armies of Pompey in 49 BC and again by Dolabella in 43 BC. The latter publicized his decision all over Asia Minor and beyond.
Me: well I don't recall asking the question so I can only guess at the reasoning of the questioner or I could enquire and get his clarification as ought to. A practicing Jew would certainly object to the idolatry that serving in the Roman army at the time but what does any of this have to do with my actual argument though.
Once the JEHOVAH'S Congregation became international rather than national serving in the various armies on the unbelieving nations would signal a readiness kill fellow subjects of JEHOVAH'S Kingdom which would be a flagrant violation of the higher allegiance we owe to that kingdom. The Christian simply cannot pick up the sword in the service of the Imperial or national ambitions of any prince of the present age.
Revelation Ch.13:10NASB"If anyone [f]is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the [g]perseverance and the faith of the [h]saints."
We never pick up the sword no matter what we trust in JEHOVAH'S Power he needs no human help to deal with his enemies the persecutors of his people.
Nincs:This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of God’s people.
Only after Caracalla’s Constitutio Antoniniana (212), all free men in the empire became Roman citizens.
But perhaps from the fact that Jesus and the apostles were not soldiers in the Roman army, do you infer that the Scriptures suggest that military service is inherently sinful for Christians? That's a very weak argument.
Me: is the weakness of this strawman why you prefer it to my actual argument.
The fact that the faithful Jews found the idolatry of Roman military service objectionable is of interest though. The sovereigns of this age demand the highest allegiance even above God their objections notwithstanding, make no mistake this commitment to in effect put the human sovereign in the place of God is the meaning of your pledge. So if you take the pledge of military service with some other intention you are in effect lying. The fact that your church has counseled its followers to in effect show higher allegiance to earthly sovereigns by killing or even being prepared to killed fellow subjects( or at least those consider such) of the highest sovereign totally Exposes your church as the Satanic fraud that it is, this is my actual argument.
NINCS:"this is your opinion, no actual evidence."
Oh come on, do JWs treat the Sermon on the Mount as commandments? No Christian does, as it is a moral guideline. In Catholic theology, the evangelical COUNSELS [such as virginity (Mt 19:12), poverty (19:21), obedience (20:27)] are distinguished from the evangelical commandments.
Me:Your abject biblical illiteracy is showing what does Matthew 19:12,19:22,20:27 have to do with the sermon on the mount. For future reference the sermon on the Mount starts with the beattitudes at Matthew 5 and ends at Matthew 7, and yes JEHOVAH'S People do attempt to apply the principles found there we testify that theses have proved superior to counsels of the churches of Christendom.
Can you be more specific as to just what is objectionable re:Matthew ch.19:12, or perhaps you would prefer to hear it from the apostle Paul
1Corinthians Ch.7:1NIV"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
It's not a mandate it's wise counsel.
Nincs:"you only don’t like this because you can’t find anyone who agrees with you"
Oh, but I do, quite the opposite, I have cited several scholars above, check it out: Edward A. Ryan, Hans von Campenhausen, Louis J. Swift, John Helgeland, James Turner Johnson, Daniel Philpott, S.J. Massaro, Thomas A. Shannon, John Eppstein, David Hunter. These researchers have examined the question "a bit" more thoroughly than those tendentious websites that only look for isolated quotes from the Church Fathers, completely ignoring the principles of citation.
"And why does Tertullian, Origen and Clement all agree with me?"
Me:why are you arguing with yourself my chosen weapon is ALWAYS the sword of the spirit JEHOVAH'S Word none of these dead philosophers impress me . Although they seem almost like they are gods to you and your kind. I don't know why you are attributing these totally out of character type of "arguments" to me. I suspect it is because my actual arguments would require sound biblical scholarship to plausibly address and that is just not your strong suit.
Nincs:They don't. Just read the Helgeland study here, he systematically addresses these Church Fathers who are often cited abusively: https://archive.org/details/christiansmilita0000helg
Furthermore, the neglect of the socio-historical-political context is also characteristic of this method, for example, many Church Father quotes could be found condemning attendance at the theater, but why? Because the theater at that time was about something else than it is today. Similarly, the condemnation of service in the Roman army by some Church Fathers at that time can plausibly be attributed to the fact that, due to the requirements of the imperial cult (emperor worship), and such a service indeed could not be conscientiously performed.
"would also be helpful if scripture references in 1 passage the trinity, Paul demonstrated he could do this Or the 2 nature doctrine I can play this game too."
You can only play this game with those who believe in "sola Scriptura," but I don't. However, you - theoretically - proclaim that all your principles and doctrines can explicitly be found in the Bible, so I rightly point out that they can not. We, on the other hand, do not claim such, so you cannot demonstrate inconsistency in this.
Me: I don't know what could have possessed you to think that the opinions of dead men could mean anything to me. The word of the living God JEHOVAH is my lamp.
And sola scriptura is not the issue your abject biblical illiteracy is.
Against nincsnevem ad pluribus
Nincs: As early as the second century, Christians began to participate in the Roman military, police, and government in large numbers, as noted by Daniel Philpott in "The Early Church" at Notre Dame University.
Me: well there were people claiming to be Christians making common cause with the pagan Roman state, there were also people claiming to be Christians who believed that waging war in the service of pagan sovereigns was utterly incompatible with being a subject of JEHOVAH'S Kingdom at that time. So this is yet another example of Mr.Nincsnevem merely being argumentative in lieu of making any real argument. JEHOVAH'S Word is the final authority on the matter not the unfounded claims of any man or group of men.
Revelation Ch.13:10NIV"10He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the [e]patience and the faith of the saints."
Clear instructions to not retaliate against our persecutors but show faith in JEHOVAH'S Supremacy while we patiently wait on his Justice.
NINCS:Military service was one way to make a living, and there was a need to defend the borders of the empire against barbarian incursions. As the army's duties expanded to include more police-like activities such as traffic and customs control, firefighting, apprehending criminals and bandits, maintaining peace, quelling street brawls, and performing engineering and construction work for which the Roman army was well-known, this choice became less problematic. This perspective is supported by S.J. Massaro and Thomas A. Shannon in their book "Catholic Perspectives on Peace and War."
Me:Were these "barbarians" any more barbaric than Rome whose reputed idea of peace was to make a desert of any land refusing to pay tribute to the emperor "son of Jupiter"? Only JEHOVAH knows for sure.
Interestingly the barbarians who eventually stormed the gates of the "eternal city" also claimed to be Christians.
True Christians call men to something truly new not the same old tribalism 2.0.
The increasing number of soldiers counted among the later martyrs indicates that many Christians served in the military. From about the middle of the second century, Roman army officers were expected to participate in the Imperial Cult and sacrifice to the emperor. During the reign of Diocletian, this obligation was extended to the lower ranks as a test for those suspected of being Christian. To avoid needless blood guilt and the risk of idolatry, Christians were counseled not to enlist but were encouraged to continue praying for the civil authorities, as explained by John Eppstein in "The Catholic Tradition of the Law of Nations."
Me: again the fact that as today many so called Christians were an utter embarrassment to Christ and his God is only to be expected according to scripture.
Revelation Ch.2:14NIV"Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality."
1john Ch.2:18NIV"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even NOW MANY antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.
Satan started the construction of his Christian counterfeit early. There is the warning that THE Last hour had come. Things could only be expected to get much worse re:the emergence of false teachers once the last of Christ apostles passed on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinus_of_Caesarea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_of_Tangier
Tuesday, 21 May 2024
Monday, 20 May 2024
This tyrant king had brains to go with his brawn?
The Wildly Varying Intelligence of T. Rex
This is a story in three parts, with a (sort of) moral at the end.
During the 19th and 20th centuries, Tyrannosaurus rex was, like all dinosaurs, generally held to be a dimwit. This view leaked from science into popular culture, as TV Tropes tells it:
Dinosaurs: slow, moronic, only existing to eat…and destined to go extinct as they couldn’t cope with their changing world, due to their brains being no bigger than a walnut. Slow, lumbering brutes with poor reflexes and even poorer movement… and heaven help you if you run into a carnivore, because they’ve only got one thing on their mind: eat.
This view of dinosaurs was prevalent from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century, to the point where the word “dinosaur” came to mean “obsolete failure.” … Carnivorous dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus rex are likely to be mindlessly violent, attacking in dangerous situations where no real animal would take the risk or when the dinosaur recently fed and has no need to hunt.
“DUMB DINOS,” TV TROPES
You could hang a Space for Rent sign on the beast’s head (except it would eat you first).
In the 21st Century, We Started to Know a Lot Less
How did we know that T. rex was abysmally stupid? Actually, we didn’t. We assumed it because dinosaurs were more like modern-day reptiles than like mammals and we find mammals to be smarter than reptiles. But, curiously, the reptiles have since turned out to be smarter than we have been giving them credit for. Briefly, the animal intelligence tests needed to be adapted to reptile life.
Then, last year, British neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel published a study claiming that “Tyrannosaurus rex didn’t just have the big body and huge claws and gigantic teeth: it probably also had as many neurons in the telencephalon as… a modern baboon.” They were, she says, “the primates of their time.”
Herculano-Houzel departs from the usual tendency to class all dinosaurs together. She considers the carnivorous therapod dinosaurs separately from the grazing ones. That is somewhat like evaluating the intelligence of wolves and deer separately. To arrive at her figures, she used living bird species, believed to be descendants of dinosaurs, as a rough guide to dinosaur neuron count.
Science writers were on the story of course:
With that many neurons, a T-Rex wouldn’t have just possessed uncanny cognition. It also might have lived longer, up to 40 years, Herculano-Houzel estimates. That’s enough time and smarts to potentially be a social creature with its own culture, like primates and whales, and also suggests they may have worked together, too.
FRANK LANDYMORE, “IN TERRIFYING NEWS, BIG BRAINED T-REX MAY HAVE BEEN AS SMART AS PRIMATES,” FUTURISM, JANUARY 10, 2023 THE PAPER IS NOT OPEN ACCESS.
Another paleontologist, Steve Brusatte, argued in Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs (Mariner 2018) that T. rex might even have been as smart as a chimp:
By calculating the ratio of brain size to body size as a measure of intelligence (modern day animal scientists use this ratio as an approximation), we can infer that the T. rex about matches a chimp on smarts, and was quite a bit keener than a pet cat or dog…
For a T. rex, being smart was certainly a matter of survival. Sure, it might not be so challenging to get by as a 40-foot-long animal weighing eight tons, but it’s easy to forget that each adult T. rex began its life as a pigeon-sized infant. Growing up in a dinosaur-eat-dinosaur world isn’t easy, particularly if that means putting on five pounds a day every day for a decade just to get through the awkward teenage years.
JACQUELINE RONSON, “NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT T-REX WAS AS SMART AS A CHIMP,” DAILY BEAST, MAY 4, 2018
True, but all dinosaurs faced survival issues. If T. rex needed to be as smart as a chimp to get by, that implies that other dinosaurs were pretty smart too. But do we really know that? Well no, we don’t. Brains don’t fossilize. There are only a few hints of what life was like back then, plus the comparisons with living birds.
Wait. The Chimpanzees Have Lodged a Complaint
Well, no, they haven’t. But this year a team of paleontologists has questioned the smart-as-primates claims in an open-access study of their own:
Dr Kai Caspar explained: “We argue that it’s not good practice to predict intelligence in extinct species when neuron counts reconstructed from endocasts are all we have to go on.”
“Neuron counts are not good predictors of cognitive performance, and using them to predict intelligence in long-extinct species can lead to highly misleading interpretations,” added Dr Ornella Bertrand (Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont).
“The possibility that T. rex might have been as intelligent as a baboon is fascinating and terrifying, with the potential to reinvent our view of the past,” concluded Dr Darren Naish. “But our study shows how all the data we have is against this idea. They were more like smart giant crocodiles, and that’s just as fascinating.”
“T. REX NOT AS SMART AS PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED, SCIENTISTS FIND,” UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL, APRIL 29, 2024
Disappointed? Don’t be. First, this estimate sounds more likely. But, second, don’t underestimate the intelligence of a crocodile, especially if you live near one:
Saturday, 18 May 2024
Malachi Chapter 2 New World Translation
2.1“And now, O priests, this commandment is for you.+ 2 If you refuse to listen and to take it to heart to glorify my name,” says JEHOVAH of armies, “I will send on you the curse,+ and I will turn your blessings into curses.+ Yes, I have turned the blessings into curses, because you are not taking it to heart.”
3 “Look! I will ruin* your sown seed because of you,+ and I will scatter dung on your faces, the dung of your festivals; and you will be carried away to it.* 4 Then you will know that I have given this commandment to you so that my covenant with Leʹvi may continue,”+ says JEHOVAH of armies.
5 “My covenant with him was one of life and of peace, which I gave to him, along with fear.* He feared me, yes, he stood in awe of my name. 6 The law* of truth was in his mouth,+ and no unrighteousness was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and in uprightness,+ and he turned many back from error. 7 For the lips of a priest should safeguard knowledge, and people should seek the law* from his mouth,+ because he is the messenger of JEHOVAH of armies.
8 “But you yourselves have turned aside from the way. You have made many stumble with regard to the law.*+ You have ruined the covenant of Leʹvi,”+ says JEHOVAH of armies. 9 “So I will make you despised and low before all the people, because you did not keep my ways but showed partiality in applying the law.”+
10 “Do we not all have one father?+ Was it not one God who created us? So why do we deal treacherously with one another,+ profaning the covenant of our forefathers? 11 Judah has dealt treacherously, and something detestable has been done in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the holiness* of JEHOVAH,+ which He loves, and he has taken as a bride the daughter of a foreign god.+ 12 JEHOVAH will cut off from the tents of Jacob anyone who does this, whoever he may be,* though he presents a gift offering to JEHOVAH of armies.”+
13 “And there is another* thing that you do, which results in covering the altar of JEHOVAH with tears and with weeping and sighing, so that he no longer pays attention to your gift offering or looks favorably on anything from your hand.+ 14 And you say, ‘For what reason?’ It is because JEHOVAH has acted as a witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously, although she is your partner and your wife by covenant.*+ 15 But there was one who did not do it, for he had what remained of the spirit. And what was that one seeking? The offspring* of God. So guard yourselves respecting your spirit, and do not deal treacherously with the wife of your youth. 16 For I hate* divorce,”+ says JEHOVAH the God of Israel, “and the one who covers his garment with violence,”* says JEHOVAH of armies. “And guard yourselves respecting your spirit, and you must not deal treacherously.+
17 “You have made JEHOVAH weary with your words.+ But you say, ‘How have we made him weary?’ By saying, ‘Everyone who does bad is good in the eyes of JEHOVAH, and he finds pleasure in him,’+ or by saying, ‘Where is the God of justice?’”
Friday, 17 May 2024
Thursday, 16 May 2024
Tuesday, 14 May 2024
Sunday, 12 May 2024
Saturday, 11 May 2024
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)