Off the deep end II

From Animal Rights Activists, a Crazy Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Wesley J. Smith January 6, 2016 11:46 AM

The Humane Party, animal rights advocates, have published a proposed constitutional amendment. I quote it here not because I think it will be enacted, but because it illustrates the subversive belief system -- the absolutist ideology -- that drives "animal rights." From the press release:

Full Text of the Abolition Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude of any sentient being shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress may, from time to time, refine the definition of 'sentient being' for the purposes of this article in accord with advances in science, except that in no event shall this definition be altered so as to exclude from this definition any species or individual organism that is, or would have been if existent, classified in the kingdom animalia as of the date of ratification of this article.

Section 3. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Realize that flies are sentient. Fish are sentient. Even oysters are sentient, which is why they make a pearl out of an irritating grain of sand.

If enacted, this would mean no cattle ranching, fish farms, animal research, zoos, or pets. After all, our dogs and cats are owned by us.

Animal rights isn't about being nicer to animals. As the "Vegan Fox" explains above, it is about elevating all fauna to equal legal and moral status with humans. It's a frightening illustration of our dissipated times that millions of people support this nihilism.

Ps. Surely the fact that we humans can choose to cease being omnivores for whatever reasons we fancy puts us in a different moral/mental category from say dragonflies that routinely prey on weaker members of their own species.

Can anyone conceive of similar protest movements occurring among the carnivores of the animal kingdom.And let's not forget that in many poorer parts of the world man eating predators continue to be responsible for thousands of human deaths yet I've heard no reports of progressive crocodiles,for instance, picketing for an end to this slaughter in the Asian and African countryside by their fellow crocodilians.Just for the record I am fully aware that humanity as a specie is a far greater danger to our fellow travelers on spaceship earth than the converse but I am also convinced that given our technological superiority things would have been far worse if we had not sought to morally/mentally distinguish ourselves from the subhuman species with which we share our planet.There is of course considerable room for improvement but for this we must take our cue from above from not below from the angels not the apes. 

Out of thin air?

As an Explanation of the Cambrian Explosion, the Oxygen Theory Takes a Lethal Blow
David Klinghoffer January 6, 2016 1:43 PM 

The oxygen idea had already taken blows, including from us, but this would seem to be the end of it. The notion was that rising oxygen levels permitted and therefore somehow spurred the Cambrian explosion, the geologically abrupt emergence of complex animal life less than 600 million years ago. It is as if the possibility of breathing deep was so enticing as to coax a vast infusion of biological information, needed to generate most known animal body plans, from nonexistence into existence. "Oh, whistle, and I'll come to you, my lad."

Now a team reports in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences that there was adequate oxygen long before, so long as to decisively blunt the oxygen theory. This seems definitive. From Science Daily:

Animals evolved by about 600 million years ago, which was late in Earth's history. The late evolution of animals, and the fact that oxygen is central for animal respiration, has led to the widely promoted idea that animal evolution corresponded with a late a rise in atmospheric oxygen concentrations.
"But sufficient oxygen in itself does not seem to be enough for animals to rise. This is indicated by our studies," say postdoc Emma Hammarlund and Professor Don Canfield, Nordic Center for Earth Evolution, University of Southern Denmark.

Together with colleagues from the China National Petroleum Corporation and the University of Copenhagen, Hammarlund and Canfield have analyzed sediment samples from the Xiamaling Formation in China. Their analyses reveal that a deep ocean 1.4 billion years ago contained at least 4% of modern oxygen concentrations.

How did they make the determination? The Abstract summarizes ("Sufficient oxygen for animal respiration 1,400 million years ago"):
The Mesoproterozoic Eon [1,600-1,000 million years ago (Ma)] is emerging as a key interval in Earth history, with a unique geochemical history that might have influenced the course of biological evolution on Earth. Indeed, although this time interval is rather poorly understood, recent chromium isotope results suggest that atmospheric oxygen levels were <0 .1="" 1="" 3="" a="" an="" ancient="" and="" animal="" approach="" are="" atmospheric="" bacteria="" biomarker="" block.="" bottom="" carbon="" china="" column.="" comprehensive="" consistent="" contrast="" cycle="" demonstrate="" deposition="" develop="" different="" distribution="" document="" during="" dynamics="" enrichments="" evolution="" explore="" formation="" geochemical="" green="" have="" in="" inhibited="" levels="" life.="" low="" ma="" marine="" metal="" metals="" minimum="" model="" north="" of="" our="" oxygen="" oxygenated="" patterns="" presence="" present="" redox-sensitive="" results="" reveal="" sediments="" show="" simple="" sufficiently="" sulfur="" that="" the="" thus="" to="" trace="" unit="" using="" water="" waters="" we="" with="" xiamaling="" yet="" zone.="">4% of present-day levels. Therefore, in contrast to previous suggestions, we show that there was sufficient oxygen to fuel animal respiration long before the evolution of animals themselves.
Emma Hammarlund encapsulates the bad news:

The sudden diversification of animals probably was a result of many factors. Maybe the oxygen rise had less to do with the animal revolution than we previously assumed.

But you know what, failed scientific theories that seem to lend support to materialism have a way of defying death. They stick around even well after the evidence has turned against them. I'd bet you that popular and even professional science sources will still be touting the oxygen theory years from now, as if nothing had happened.

Namibia to the defence of religious liberty

Namibia Supreme Court Upholds Patients’ Rights and Religious Freedom:


The Supreme Court of Namibia has ruled to protect a patient’s right to bodily self-determination and personal autonomy in making treatment decisions. The Court also recognized the validity of a written advance directive informing health-care providers of the patient’s treatment wishes.

Childbirth and a Medical Emergency
The legal case before the Court concerned the health of Efigenia Semente, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In preparation for the birth of her third child, Mrs. Semente informed her physician that she would not accept blood transfusions because of her religious convictions. She also gave him an advance medical directive in the form of a durable power of attorney. In this document, Mrs. Semente expressed her unequivocal refusal of blood and designated her husband as her health-care agent to make decisions for her if she became incapacitated.

The physician safely delivered her daughter on September 8, 2012, but Mrs. Semente required postdelivery surgery. Her husband, as her health-care agent, consented. However, complications arose during the surgery, and the physician wished to administer a blood transfusion. Mr. Semente refused on his wife’s behalf, consistent with her advance medical directive. The doctor successfully operated without a blood transfusion, but Mrs. Semente came out of surgery with low hemoglobin levels.

High Court Intervention
On September 13, 2012, while Mrs. Semente was recovering from surgery, her eldest brother applied to the High Court of Namibia to be appointed as her legal curator so that he—instead of her husband—could direct her medical treatment. Although neither Mrs. Semente nor her husband received notice of her brother’s application, the court conducted a hearing in their absence and ordered her brother appointed as curator. Her brother thereafter directed the medical staff to transfuse Mrs. Semente against her will, but she repeated her refusal and resisted their efforts, thus preventing the transfusion.

When Mrs. Semente learned that the court had appointed her brother as her curator, she made an urgent application to the High Court to rescind the order. She argued that she was of sound mind when her brother applied for curatorship and that her brother’s authorization of a blood transfusion violated both her religious beliefs and her right to bodily self-determination. The court dismissed her application and allowed her brother to continue as her curator.

Although Mrs. Semente’s doctor testified that she would die without a transfusion, her condition improved with nonblood medical management, and she was discharged from the hospital on September 26, 2012, without being transfused. However, the High Court had appointed her brother as her curator indefinitely. Viewing the curatorship as a violation of her personal autonomy and basic human rights, Mrs. Semente appealed to the Supreme Court of Namibia.

“The facts of this matter concern some of [the] most essential human rights issues likely to arise in litigation. They relate to the right to bodily autonomy, the right to freely practice one’s religion, and the freedom from discrimination.”—Supreme Court of Namibia.
Supreme Court Judgment
On June 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of Namibia upheld Mrs. Semente’s fundamental rights and rescinded her brother’s curatorship. The Supreme Court condemned as “entirely inappropriate” the lack of notice to Mrs. Semente and her husband and the High Court’s one-sided hearing that appointed Mrs. Semente’s brother as her curator.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the Namibia Constitution guarantees personal liberty and human dignity as the basis of patient autonomy. The Court stated: “The principle of patient autonomy reflects that it is a basic human right for an individual to be able to assert control over his or her own body. . . . Medical practitioners must inform their patients about the material risks and benefits of the recommended treatment but it is up to the patient to decide whether to proceed with a particular course of treatment.”

“It is a basic human right for an individual to be able to assert control over his or her own body.”—Supreme Court of Namibia.
Ultimately, in reviewing Mrs. Semente’s competency to refuse blood transfusions, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court gave insufficient weight to her durable power of attorney. The Supreme Court further stated: “Written advanced directives which are specific, not compromised by undue influence, and signed at a time when the patient has decisional capacity constitute clear evidence of a patient’s intentions regarding their medical treatment.”

The Supreme Court also addressed the question of whether a child’s right to be raised by her parents restricts her parents’ right to choose their medical treatment. After reviewing international case law, the Court concluded that “the right to choose what can and cannot be done to one’s body, whether one is a parent or not, is an inalienable human right.”


The Supreme Court of Namibia has strengthened the right to bodily self-determination and has recognized advance medical directives as evidence of a patient’s values and treatment choices. By upholding the rights to bodily integrity and religious freedom, the Supreme Court has protected basic human dignity and liberty for all Namibians.

The Watchtower Society's commentary on "patience"

LONG-SUFFERING:
The patient endurance of wrong or provocation, combined with a refusal to give up hope for improvement in the disturbed relationship. Long-suffering therefore has a purpose, looking particularly to the welfare of the one causing the disagreeable situation. It does not mean the condoning of wrong, however. When the purpose for long-suffering is accomplished, or when there is no point in further putting up with the situation, long-suffering ends. It ends either with good to those giving provocation or with action against the wrongdoers. In any case the one exercising long-suffering is not harmed in spirit.

The literal meaning of the Hebrew expression translated “slow to anger” (“long-suffering” in some translations) is “length of nostrils [where anger flares up].” (Ex 34:6; Nu 14:18; see ANGER.) The Greek word ma·kro·thy·miʹa (long-suffering) literally means “longness of spirit.” (Ro 2:4, Int) Both the Hebrew and Greek expressions denote patience, forbearance, slowness to anger. The English word “suffering” in the word “long-suffering” has the sense of “putting up with, permitting, tolerating, holding up, or delaying.” “Long-suffering” means more than merely enduring pain or trouble. It does not mean merely “suffering long” but involves deliberate restraint.

The Scriptures reveal God’s evaluation of long-suffering and point out the foolishness and bad results of not maintaining “longness of spirit.” The long-suffering person may seem weak, but he actually is using discernment. “He that is slow to anger is abundant in discernment, but one that is impatient is exalting foolishness.” (Pr 14:29) Long-suffering is better than physical mightiness, and it will accomplish more. “He that is slow to anger is better than a mighty man, and he that is controlling his spirit than the one capturing a city.”—Pr 16:32.

The man who is not ‘long in spirit,’ but who bursts forth without restraint, is open to the invasion of any and all improper thoughts and actions, for: “As a city broken through, without a wall, is the man that has no restraint for his spirit.” (Pr 25:28) “All his spirit is what a stupid one lets out, but he that is wise keeps it calm to the last.” (Pr 29:11) For these reasons, the wise man counsels not to be ‘short in spirit’: “Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones.”—Ec 7:9.

Jehovah’s Long-Suffering. When Jehovah took Moses up into Mount Horeb and showed him some of his glory, he declared before Moses: “Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth, preserving loving-kindness for thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin, but by no means will he give exemption from punishment.” (Ex 34:5-7) This truth about Jehovah’s slowness to anger was repeated by Moses, David, Nahum, and others.—Nu 14:18; Ne 9:17; Ps 86:15; 103:8; Joe 2:13; Jon 4:2; Na 1:3.

While long-suffering is an attribute of Jehovah, it is always expressed in harmony with his primary attributes of love, justice, wisdom, and power. (1Jo 4:8; De 32:4; Pr 2:6; Ps 62:11; Isa 40:26, 29) Justice is due, first of all, to God’s own name. That name must be exalted above all others in the universe; and this is essential for the well-being of all his creatures. The magnifying of his name is one of his chief reasons for long-suffering, as the apostle Paul explains: “If, now, God, although having the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, tolerated with much long-suffering vessels of wrath made fit for destruction, in order that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, what of it?” (Ro 9:22-24) God, in exercising long-suffering, is taking out a people for his name. And by means of them he is magnifying himself in all the earth.—Ac 15:14; 1Co 3:9, 16, 17; 2Co 6:16.

God exhibited his long-suffering in the very early part of man’s history. Rebellion of the first human couple had brought violation of his law. But instead of executing them immediately, as God could have justly done, in love he displayed long-suffering. This was for their as-yet-unborn descendants, to whom such long-suffering meant everything (his patience means salvation for many [2Pe 3:15]). More important, God also had in view the magnifying of his glory by means of the Seed of promise. (Ge 3:15; Joh 3:16; Ga 3:16) And God not only was long-suffering at that time but he knew that he would have to put up with imperfect mankind for several thousand years of history, delaying punishment against a world at enmity with him. (Jas 4:4) Some have misunderstood and misused God’s long-suffering toward them, missing its purpose by viewing it as slowness rather than as loving patience.—Ro 2:4; 2Pe 3:9.

Nowhere is the long-suffering of God more evident than in his dealings with the ancient nation of Israel. (Ro 10:21) Time and again he received them back after they had fallen away, were punished, and repented. They killed his prophets and finally his own Son. They fought the preaching of the good news by Jesus and his apostles. But God’s long-suffering was not wasted. There was a remnant that proved faithful. (Isa 6:8-13; Ro 9:27-29; 11:5) He used some of such faithful ones to write his Word under inspiration. (Ro 3:1, 2) The Law he gave showed that all mankind are sinners and need a redeemer, and it pointed to that One who would give his life as a ransom price and who would be exalted to the high position of King. (Ga 3:19, 24) Patterns of that Kingdom and of Christ’s priesthood were provided (Col 2:16, 17; Heb 10:1), and examples for us to follow or avoid were set forth. (1Co 10:11; Heb 6:12; Jas 5:10) All these things are essential to mankind for the gaining of everlasting life.—Ro 15:4; 2Ti 3:16, 17.

Jehovah not long-suffering forever. On the other hand, God is long-suffering only as long as it is in harmony with justice, righteousness, and wisdom. The fact that long-suffering is exercised when a bad or provocative situation exists shows that it is meant to give opportunity for those involved in the bad situation to change, to straighten up. When matters come to a point where it is seen that there is no hope of such change, justice and righteousness would be violated if long-suffering should continue. Then God acts in wisdom to remove the bad situation. His patience comes to an end.

An example of this forbearance on God’s part and of its coming to an end is found in God’s dealing with men before the Flood. A deplorable condition existed, and God said: “My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely in that he is also flesh. Accordingly his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.” (Ge 6:3) Later, regarding Israel’s misuse of Jehovah’s long-suffering, Isaiah said: “But they themselves rebelled and made his holy spirit feel hurt. He now was changed into an enemy of theirs; he himself warred against them.”—Isa 63:10; compare Ac 7:51.

For these reasons Christians are entreated not to “accept the undeserved kindness of God and miss its purpose.” (2Co 6:1) They are counseled: “Do not be grieving [saddening] God’s holy spirit.” (Eph 4:30, Int) Also, “Do not put out the fire of the spirit.” (1Th 5:19) Otherwise they may continue to the point of sin and blasphemy against God’s spirit, in effect outraging it, in which case there is no repentance or forgiveness, only destruction.—Mt 12:31, 32; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31.

Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ exemplified long-suffering among humans. Of him, the prophet Isaiah wrote: “He was hard pressed, and he was letting himself be afflicted; yet he would not open his mouth. He was being brought just like a sheep to the slaughtering; and like a ewe that before her shearers has become mute, he also would not open his mouth.” (Isa 53:7) He put up with the weaknesses of his apostles and the insults and discourtesies heaped upon him by bitter, vicious enemies. Yet he did not retaliate in kind, by word or action. (Ro 15:3) When the apostle Peter acted injudiciously in cutting off the ear of Malchus, Jesus reproved him with the words: “Return your sword to its place, . . . do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than twelve legions of angels? In that case, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that it must take place this way?”—Mt 26:51-54; Joh 18:10, 11.

Why is it important for Christians to cultivate long-suffering?

From the foregoing it is evident that long-suffering originates with Jehovah God. It is a fruit of his spirit. (Ga 5:22) Man, made in the image and likeness of God, has a measure of this quality and can develop it by following God’s Word and the direction of his holy spirit. (Ge 1:26, 27) Christians are therefore commanded to cultivate and display this quality. (Col 3:12) It is an identifying mark of a minister of God. (2Co 6:4-6) The apostle Paul says: “Be long-suffering toward all.” (1Th 5:14) He indicates that it is essential to exercise this quality in order to be pleasing to God. But one’s long-suffering is not genuine if it is accompanied by grumbling and complaining. Paul shows that the commendable thing is to “be long-suffering with joy.”—Col 1:9-12.

Aside from the joy that one gets through the practice of long-suffering, the rewards are great. Jehovah is rewarded by having his name glorified. The challenge against the righteousness and rightfulness of God’s sovereignty is proved wrong, and he is vindicated. (Ge 3:1-5; Job 1:7-11; 2:3-5) What if he had put Adam, Eve, and Satan to death at the time of the rebellion? Some might have concluded that Satan had a point in his challenge. But by long-suffering, Jehovah gave men the opportunity to prove under test that they prefer his sovereignty over them and that they want to serve him because of his fine qualities, yes, to demonstrate that they prefer Jehovah’s sovereignty to complete independence, knowing that it is far better.—Ps 84:10.

Jesus Christ, because of long-suffering in obedience to God, received a most marvelous reward, being exalted to the superior position of kingship and being given “the name that is above every other name,” by his Father. (Php 2:5-11) Besides this, he receives a “bride” made up of his spiritual brothers, the New Jerusalem, which is represented as a city, the foundation stones of which have on them the names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb.—2Co 11:2; Re 21:2, 9, 10, 14.


Likewise, the reward is rich for all persons cultivating long-suffering and maintaining it in harmony with God’s purpose. (Heb 6:11-15) They have the satisfaction of copying God’s quality, of doing God’s will, and of having God’s approval. Additionally, their long-suffering will bring accomplishment in helping others to know God and to gain everlasting life.—1Ti 4:16.

Lamarck's revenge III

Epigenetics, a Revolution with a Long Onramp, Poised to Accelerate Design Thinking
Some revolutions have long onramps. Modern epigenetics has been around for well over a decade, but its impact has yet to be fully explored. Which interpretation of biology -- evolution or intelligent design -- stands the best chance of advancing scientific understanding of genomics through epigenetics research?

Well, it is indeed a revolution; that's what senior reporter Heidi Ledford calls it in her Nature Outlook piece, "Epigenetics: the genome unwrapped." She ends with remarks by Tomasz Jurkowski, a biochemist and epigeneticist at the University of Stuttgart in Germany who is racing against other researchers to untangle DNA's secrets:

He takes the competition in stride -- it is the price of entry into the fast lane. Epigenetics is on the verge of a revolution, he says. "This is just the beginning," he says. With just a little more time, "It will develop into a completely new field." [Emphasis added.]

As with any field in such a revolutionary condition, the ultimate outcome is unpredictable. That's why Ledford's subtitle reads, "Epigeneticists are harnessing genome-editing technologies to tackle a central question hanging over the community -- does their field matter?"

There's reason to think it will matter -- a lot. Of the many epigenetic markers already identified, many have shown to affect an organism's phenotype. Some of them have been shown to be heritable, opening up new vistas of epigenetic inheritance. Now, with the updated CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing tool, despite its potential for ethical quandaries (see discoverer Jennifer Doudna in Nature worrying about the Pandora's box she opened), epigenetics researchers are pushing the accelerator pedal.

Ledford describes how CRISPR-Cas9 -- Science Magazine's 2015 "Breakthrough of the Year" -- has already allowed one research team to speed around another team that did things the old-fashioned way.

René Maehr, an immunologist at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester and his colleagues fused an enzyme called histone demethylase, which removes methyl groups from histones, to a deactivated Cas9 enzyme, and then programmed it to target regions of DNA believed to enhance the expression of certain genes. The result was a functional map of genetic 'enhancer' sequences that allows researchers to determine what these enhancers do, how strongly, and -- most importantly -- where they are located in the genome.

Question: Why were they seeking "to determine what these enhancers do"? Answer: They didn't believe they were junk. They watched the target gene increase its expression significantly. "That result started to convince me that the acetylation of histones may be a direct cause of gene activation." This suggests a new layer of specified complexity that supersedes the old Central Dogma that viewed DNA as the master controller. Functional mapping now steps up from genes to the epigenetic markers that regulate them.

Researchers don't know if all epigenetic marks have such dramatic effects. "For all we know, they might have very minor effects on gene expression except in a few special cases," a researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle opines. We may not have long to find out.

Now, however, researchers have a tool to pick apart the detail. Because of its simplicity and versatility, CRISPR-Cas9 opens up an opportunity to launch the kind of large-scale projects needed to reach that level of understanding. "If we want to target a region in the genome, we can have that targeting molecule here tomorrow for five dollars," says Reddy. "We're going to get to march through every single one of these modifications and figure out what they actually do."

You don't try to figure out what pieces of junk do. Whatever the outcome of the "ambitious projects" ahead, "the rapid pace of the field is already defying expectations," Ledford writes. Let's look at some other recent articles for clues.

Epigenetic markers may shed light on the long-standing mystery of the molecular basis for caste-specific behavior in ant colonies. (Science Magazine):

These findings reveal the epigenome as a likely substrate underlying caste-based division of labor in eusocial insects. Furthermore, in light of the conserved role of CBP in learning and memory in both invertebrates and mammals, these data suggest that CBP-mediated histone acetylation may similarly facilitate the complex social interactions found in vertebrate species.

Epigenetic markers affecting the immune system change with habitat, researchers found when comparing methylation marks on forest-dwelling African tribes with sedentary farmers. (Pasteur Institute):

These results partly explain why some people are predisposed to certain diseases. "Our research shows that changing lifestyles and habitats have a major influence on our epigenome and that urbanization significantly affects the epigenetic profiles of the immune system. This demonstrates how important it is, alongside more traditional genetic research, to investigate how epigenetic changes could result in an immune system that is more prone to the development of autoimmune diseases, allergies, inflammation and so on," explains Lluis Quintana-Murci. [Italics in original.]

"Epigenetic discovery suggests DNA modifications more diverse than previously thought" (University of Cambridge):

The world of epigenetics -- where molecular 'switches' attached to DNA turn genes on and off -- has just got bigger with the discovery by a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge of a new type of epigenetic modification.... It's possible that we struck lucky with this modifier, but we believe it is more likely that there are many more modifications that directly regulate our DNA."

This is just a taste of the kind of high-level research that is attracting grant money. The project at Cambridge, for instance, was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Human Frontier Science Program, Isaac Newton Trust, Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, and the Medical Research Council.

Four years ago, we discussed whether the epigenome is "Evolution's Newest Nightmare." Current Biology put up a brave front, claiming that epigenetics might promise "interesting new angles in the study of evolution." That's hard to support now. None of the articles quoted above had any use for evolutionary theory. Indeed, how could they? If epigenetic markers regulate genes; if they act like molecular switches; if they can be placed into functional maps -- then they represent a higher level of complex specified information that defies the neo-Darwinian mutation/selection story.


Stated explicitly or not, it's design-based thinking that leads scientists to build functional maps of epigenetic markers and motivates them to "figure out what they actually do." Who would waste time or money on junk? The downfall of the junk-DNA concept gives scientists encouragement to seek new levels of specified complexity in epigenetic regulation. The future of epigenomics looks bright -- for intelligent design.

Darwinism vs. the real world XXII

Hemostasis: Maintaining the Right Numbers Is Crucial

Howard Glicksman January 5, 2016 1:41 PM

Editor's note: Physicians have a special place among the thinkers who have elaborated the argument for intelligent design. Perhaps that's because, more than evolutionary biologists, they are familiar with the challenges of maintaining a functioning complex system, the human body. With that in mind, Evolution News & Views is delighted to present this series, "The Designed Body." For the complete series, see here. Dr. Glicksman practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization.

So far in this series, we have seen that evolutionary biologists can only speculate on how complex systems within the body came into being. As for the body knowing how to make sure it has the right amounts of oxygen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen ion, hemoglobin, iron, water, sodium, and potassium, the evolution of such a wonder similarly remains a black box.

The same applies to hemostasis, the process by which the body forms fibrin clots to stop bleeding and allow it to heal. Without this, a minor injury would be lethal. As noted previously, hemostasis involves mainly three processes, which are triggered when blood vessel damage occurs. Those are vasoconstriction, platelet aggregation, and activation of the clotting factors. However, since the presence of clots within a major vessel, like an artery sending blood to the heart, the brain, or the lungs, can result in sudden death, hemostasis must turn on only when it's needed and turn off and stay off when it's not.

In previous articles I've shown that chemicals released by the endothelium (the tissue lining the inside of the blood vessel), with the help of specific anti-clotting factors produced in the liver, combine normally to prevent clotting unless an injury takes place. The total absence of platelets, or any one of most of the clotting or anti-clotting factors, would have disrupted this delicate balance, making it impossible for our earliest ancestors to live long enough to reproduce. As with iron, potassium, and blood pressure, not having enough can be deadly, but so can having too much.

An Analogy from Nature

Consider Beavers build dams across streams to form large enough ponds in which to build their homes. When nature or a predator creates an opening in the dam, the beavers must quickly patch up the damage or lose their home. To prevent further leakage, the patch must seal the opening and be strong enough to withstand the force of water against it. Solid logs, flexible branches, and soft leaves packed together with lots of soft mud are the usual materials used by beavers to construct and repair dams. The size of the opening determines how much material must be used to complete the job properly. Even beavers "know" that real numbers have consequences for life. So too the body must have enough material to prevent traumatic blood loss through hemostasis.

Due to the laws of nature, like friction, momentum, sheer, pressure, and gravity, the body experiences thousands of small vascular injuries every day. These trigger vasoconstriction and platelet aggregation to form a platelet plug. The body must have enough platelets to begin the process of hemostasis. Thrombopoietin is a hormone produced mainly in the liver and kidneys that controls platelet production in the bone marrow. The normal platelet count is 150,000-450,000 per microliter (uL = mm3) of blood. Platelet counts below 20,000/uL, and in particular, less than 10,000/uL, often result in moderate or severe spontaneous bleeding, which can be life-threatening if it occurs in the brain or the gastrointestinal system.

But having too many platelets isn't good for the body either. Platelets are cell-like structures that float in the bloodstream. Just like having too many food particles in the kitchen can clog the drain, so having too many platelets in the circulation can slow blood flow, particularly in the small arteries and arterioles, which can compromise organ and tissue function. Platelet counts above 750,000/uL can result in a heart attack, a stroke, or blood clots in other areas of the body. Thus, not just any number of platelets is needed to have controlled hemostasis. It looks like most of the time, the system that the body uses knows what it's doing.

During platelet aggregation, fibrinogen molecules attach to them and activation of the clotting factors takes place. The coagulation cascade involves several clotting factors using two different chemical pathways to form prothrombinase. Prothrombinase converts prothrombin into thrombin, which then converts fibrinogen into fibrin so a fibrin clot can form to seal the damaged site. In addition, the endothelium secretes chemicals that not only prevent platelet aggregation but also ones (heparan sulfate and thrombomodulin) that work with others from the liver (antithrombin and protein C) to prevent activation of the clotting factors.

When blood vessel damage takes place, these inhibitors of clotting are no longer present in sufficient amounts to prevent the clotting cascade from taking over to form a fibrin clot. Since the endothelium on either side of the injury site is functioning normally, these anti-clotting chemicals make sure that the clot only forms where it's supposed to, and doesn't propagate up or down the blood vessel. This is how the body is able to control hemostasis so that it turns on when it's needed and turns off and stays off when it isn't.

Thousands of Small Vessel Injuries Every Day

The liver produces most of the clotting and some of the anti-clotting factors, but as with most things made in the liver, medical science has very little understanding of how they are controlled. As noted above, thousands of small vessel injuries take place every day. This means that to prevent blood loss and promote healing, hemostasis is always working and, by necessity, is continually using the clotting factors. For hemostasis to function properly, it is not only important for all of the clotting factors to be present, but there must be enough of each of them to get the job done right

When there isn't enough of any one clotting factor, this puts the body at risk for excessive and sometimes spontaneous bleeding. These are called hemorrhagic or bleeding disorders. The normal blood level of fibrinogen is about 3,000 units, but if it drops below 1,000 units, excessive bleeding can take place with limited injury because there just isn't enough to go around. The normal blood level of prothrombin is about 100 units and if it drops below 30 units, the same thing happens.

For Factor V, the normal and critical numbers are 10 units and 2.5 units, for Factor VII, 0.5 units and 0.125 units, for Factor VIII, 0.1 units and 0.04 units (Hemophilia A), for Factor IX, 5 units and 1.5 units (Hemophilia B), for Factor X, 10 units and 2 units, for Factor XI, 5 units and 1.5 units and for Factor XIII, 30 units and 1.5 units.

Too Much of a Good Thing

But having too much of a good thing can cause problems as well. Prothrombin 20210 is an inherited gene mutation that occurs in about 1 percent of the U.S. population, when the liver produces about 30 percent more prothrombinthan normal. Having too much prothrombin significantly increases the risk of clotting and can cause what are known as prothombotic or hypercoagulable states. These conditions can often lead to thromboembolism in which a clot forms, usually in a leg vein, and then breaks off and travels to the right side of the heart and then to the lungs. Pulmonary embolism is a medical emergency that can quickly lead to death because the blood flowing to the lungs to pick up oxygen and drop off carbon dioxide is compromised.

Another mechanism that can cause a hypercoagulable state is a deficiency in the amount or function of the anti-clotting factors. Deficiencies of antithrombin and protein C are relatively rare, while their total absence is considered to be incompatible with life. However, the commonest inherited prothrombotic condition is Factor V Leiden. This occurs in about 5 percent of the U.S. population and may be responsible for up to 30 percent of the cases of thromboembolic disease.

Normal endothelium secretes thrombomodulin, which joins to thrombin to activate protein C. Activated Protein C (APC) then deactivates Factors V and VIII, both of which are very important for clot formation. However, the amino acid structure of Factor V Leidenis such that it is resistant to being broken down by APC. This results in an increase in the presence of activated Factor V and the accumulation of more thrombin than usual. Having more thrombin can often lead to clots forming not only in the veins, but less frequently in the arteries as well. So a person with this condition is not only at risk for leg clots and pulmonary embolism but also heart attack and stroke.

The foregoing shows that the body's ability to prevent itself from bleeding to death from injury, while making sure it has enough blood flow to its trillions of cells, is a very delicately balanced process. The process, hemostasis, involves both pro- and anti-clotting factors. Not having enough pro-clotting compared to anti-clotting factors results in a bleeding disorder, like hemophilia, with its risk of hemorrhagic death (cerebral or gastrointestinal bleed). Not having enough anti-clotting compared to pro-clotting factors, like Factor V Leiden, results in a hypercoagulable state with its risk of a thromboembolic death (heart attack, stroke, pulmonary embolism).

Evolutionary biology speculates on how the many pro- and anti-clotting factors came into existence. But it never addresses how they could have worked together to allow an organism to survive long enough to reproduce. For that requires not only that an organism has all the parts of this irreducibly complex system, but that it also has the natural survival capacity to produce the right amounts of each.


Although medical science remains in the dark about such evolutionary mysteries, this does not stop some biologists from telling the public and teaching children otherwise. It takes a lot of imagination to believe that the ultra-complex and delicately balanced process of hemostasis came about by chance and the laws of nature alone. Advocates of intelligent design, who see the design seen in nature as real rather than an illusion, are on firmer ground, supported by what is already known about what it takes for life to survive under the laws of nature. In the next few articles in this series, I will look at how the body protects itself from invasion and what happens when its defenses break down.

On origin of life science's anthropomorphisms

What Origin-of-Life Researchers Forget
Evolution News & Views January 6, 2016 3:31 AM 

The origin-of-life field is often guilty of ascribing personality to molecules. You see this in the popular literature, but even the serious scientists slip into the habit. It takes the form of an invisible hand, directing the assembly of multiple parts like a foreman at a construction site. Need a membrane? Here are some fatty acids that can make a simple one for starters. Need a replicator? This RNA isn't great, but he can learn. Need proteins? We found some in this meteorite that are willing to lend a left hand.

A more realistic image would be an arena of dead runners surrounded by hurdles as high as mountains. They don't "want" to leap over the hurdles and win a race to become alive, because they can't. They're dead. So are molecules often dubbed "The building blocks of life." They have no interest in jumping over hurdles on a path to a protocell. Much as the origin-of-life researcher wants them to win the Protocell Prize, they couldn't care less. They'll just do whatever the unguided forces of nature make them do.

The only way dead runners can get over a hurdle without intelligent help is to wait for an earthquake, a tsunami, or a meteorite to launch them. With a lot of luck, one runner might land on the other side of the first hurdle. But then he won't have any interest in continuing on over the second hurdle. He is incapable of wanting.

This is the only realistic way for an origin-of-life researcher to approach the problem: molecules are dead things. They don't want to become alive. No amount of coaxing, sweet-talking, or intelligent interference will make them want to live. They will behave like the lifeless things they are, blindly following the laws of chemistry and physics, just as dead runners will obey the law of gravity and lie on the ground unless launched by a force strong enough to overcome gravity. Even if they make it over the top, they will fall back on the ground without any interest in making it over the next hurdle. This pessimistic outlook is true even after Darwinian natural selection enters the picture. Natural selection is just as dead as the molecules. It must not be personified; it has no goal, wish, or plan.

Origin-of-life researchers think they have done their job if they find a possible earthquake or tsunami that might get one body over a hurdle. This "sheds light" on the problem, they say. Different labs find additional earthquakes and tsunamis to help with the other hurdles. Accident #1 "might" work, accident #2 "might" get a body over the next hurdle, and so on. The series of lucky accidents "sheds light" on how life got here, the materialists assure us. They feel justified making up various scenarios because they think, "We're here, aren't we? It must have happened somehow." Having abandoned intelligence as a cause, they're stuck.

With this in mind, let's examine a paper in Current Biology by Saha and Chen, "Origin of Life: Protocells Red in Tooth and Claw." First, they recognize a couple of hurdles:

What is life, and how can we make it? NASA's Exobiology Program uses the working definition of life as "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution". Several research labs have undertaken the task of synthesizing an organism that meets this definition. It seems clear that some propagating genetic information is necessary, whether it is a self-replicating RNA or a system of enzymes and DNA. In addition, there are convincing arguments for encapsulating the genetic system inside self-replicating vesicles, creating a primitive entity called a 'protocell'. [Emphasis added.]

There are many more hurdles in the track beyond the two they mention, (1) genetic information and (2) a container. But did you catch the intelligent interference? They speak of labs run by intelligent agents who "have undertaken the task of synthesizing an organism." They ask, "How can we make it?" It's not their job, but even if they were to succeed, it would prove intelligent design, not the origin of life by natural processes.

Origin of life research is sometimes abbreviated OOL. According to their definition, NOODLE would be more apt: Naturalistic Origin of Darwinian Life Evolving. Their job is going to be harder than pushing a NOODLE through a needle. They have to keep their intelligent hands off, and the noodle doesn't want to go there. "But," they might reply, "what if there are billions of noodles and billions of needles? One or more might wash through the eye of a needle by chance and natural forces." OK, but there are more needles on the pathway to life, and the noodles are still dead, uncaring, and uncared for.

Saha and Chen make a big deal of protocell models based on phospholipid membranes (fat bubbles). These could encapsulate floating molecules of DNA or RNA and then merge with other fat bubbles, creating a game of competition. Follow the personification in their figure caption:

(A) A scheme for evolution of protocells from coacervates. (B) In the competition among protocells, the 'rich get richer' as the larger vesicle grows more quickly and fuses with the feeder vesicles. (C) In a virus-like strategy, a parasitic genome (red) lurks within a small vesicle and awaits fusion. Once inside an actively metabolizing protocell, the parasitic genome replicates rapidly and overtakes the host's genome (black).

It's hard to take this seriously. The molecules don't want to get rich. They aren't competing. They aren't lurking, awaiting, and overtaking. If the richest fat bubble outlasts the others, the only ones celebrating are the researchers.

It's not necessary to wade through the weeds of their paper, hearing about "zwitterionic or anionic membranes" and other jargon, because their approach is fallacious throughout. They are hoisting the dead bodies over the hurdles against their natural inclinations. Example:

Therefore, the membrane composition became increasingly dominated by the (non-phospholipid) cationic lipid, which could not form stable vesicles on its own. In addition, there was no way to add more nucleotides and enzyme. Ultimately, a mechanism to supply phospholipids and nucleotides to the protocells was required.

The solution to this problem has recently been reported by the same group, through delivery of nucleotides, enzyme and phospholipids by fusion of 'feeder' vesicles to the protocells....

They picture the fat bubbles cannibalizing one another. No kidding: "These protocell cannibals thus gain direct access to their victim's contents.... Vesicle cannibalism raises the stakes of the competition between protocells -- inactive protocells do not merely fail to grow, they are actually eaten by others."

These fat bubbles are sheer barbarians! They're waging war in some kind of Malthusian struggle. It's Darwin time now:

Feeding through fusion also opens the door to a pageant of evolutionary phenomena. Strategies to preferentially sequester resources (e.g., enzymes or membrane catalysts) during division or rapidly produce or acquire anionic mass could evolve. In addition, the conveyor vesicles need not be devoid of a genome. Fusion of vesicles containing different genomes would create intracellular competition between unrelated genomes, and could lead to genetic novelty through recombination. Parasitic genomes could lurk within conveyor vesicles, awaiting fusion to a target vesicle susceptible to takeover (Figure 1C).

Nothing in this story is realistic when you demand "plausible prebiotic conditions" and exclude investigator interference. Fat bubbles don't mind who wins the alleged "competition." A "genome" is not a random assortment of mixed-handed nucleotides inside a fat bubble. It's dead, too. It won't care about preserving "novelty" for future generations. It isn't lurking to take over a target vesicle.

It doesn't matter that the scenario is highly unrealistic; storytelling is fun! Everybody wins, and all must get a prize:

Although these protocells are rather advanced compared to the prebiotic milieu, further study of this evolvable system promises to be a rewarding endeavor.


If you find it troubling that scientific journals can publish stuff like this and be rewarded for it -- with no complaints from sensible realists or opportunities for rebuttal -- you're not alone.

File under "well said" XVIII

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Denying the oasis on account of the desert?

Two quick questions for Professor Coyne
January 1, 2016 Posted by vjtorley under Intelligent Design  

Over at Why Evolution Is True, Professor Jerry Coyne is gleefully celebrating the impending demise of the Discovery Institute and of Intelligent Design. But before he pops the champagne, I wonder if he would care to answer two questions I’d like to ask him, in relation to some remarks he made on Casey Luskin’s recent announcement that he would be leaving Discovery Institute to further his studies.

1. Professor Coyne, you wrote that “the early claim that ENCODE showed that 80% of our genome had a function was incorrect, and there remains a huge portion of the human genome that’s nonfunctional,” and you added: “And even if 80% of the human genome were functional, how does that prove the existence of an intelligent designer? What about the other 20%? Did the Great Designer screw up there?”

Before I pose my question, I’m going to make a concession right up-front that will raise a few eyebrows: after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. (And as you correctly point out, Professor, even ENCODE has now backtracked from its claim.)


I’d now like to draw your attention to a WEIT post titled, DNA: optimised source code?, written by Professor Matthew Cobb, who is a regular contributor to your Website. (I commented on the post here.) The post discussed the following cartoon from xkcd.



Professor Cobb argued that since at least 85% our genome is junk, our DNA should be viewed as the mindless product of a series of historical accidents. But then he made a startling admission (the first bold emphasis is mine – VJT):

On a final note, in some cases, within this amazing noise, there are also astonishing examples of complexity which do indeed appear to be the result of optimisation – and they would boggle the mind of anyone, not just a cocky computer scientist in a hat. In Drosophila there is a gene called Dscam, which is involved in neuronal development and has four clusters of exons (bits of the gene that are expressed – hence exon – in contrast to the apparently inert introns).

Each of these exons can be read by the cell in twelve, forty-eight, thirty-three or two alternative ways. As a result, the single stretch of DNA that we call Dscam can encode 38,016 different proteins. (For the moment, this is the record number of alternative proteins produced by a single gene. I suspect there are many even more extreme examples.)

Evidently Professor Cobb agrees with agnostic Bill Gates, who wrote twenty years ago: “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” (The Road Ahead, Penguin: London, Revised Edition, 1996, p. 228.)

So my first question is: if (i) Nature contains systems which accomplish a feat (namely, coding for complex structures) in a manner which is far better than what our best computer scientists can do, and (ii) despite diligent searching, scientists have failed to observe any cases in Nature of unguided processes generating a new code from scratch, then why isn’t it reasonable to infer (at least provisionally) that these systems were designed by a super-human Intelligence? You tell me, Professor.

Regarding your remarks on junk DNA, I’d also like to draw your attention to something I wrote on my post in response to Professor Cobb:

Even if Professor Cobb is right about junk DNA – and I’m inclined to think he is (for reasons I’ll discuss in another post) – that’s beside the point. At most, it shows is that DNA which doesn’t code for anything wasn’t designed. But my question is: what about the DNA which does code for proteins, and which does so in a manner that boggles the ingenuity of our brightest minds? Professor Cobb, it seems, is missing the wood for the trees here.

Junk DNA might be described as degenerate code – but there has to be a code in the first place, before it can degenerate. The existence of junk DNA cannot be used as an argument against design: all it establishes is that the designer of our DNA – whether out of benign neglect, laziness, illness, or ignorance that something has gone amiss – doesn’t always fix the code he created, when it becomes corrupted. Accordingly, junk DNA cannot be used as a legitimate argument against the proposition that the DNA in our cells which codes for genes was designed.

My second question, Professor Coyne, relates to your remarks on epigenetics, which Casey Luskin cited in his latest post as his “Exhibit B” of a prediction made by Intelligent Design that had been fulfilled:

Exhibit B: The burgeoning field of epigenetics has also validated ID’s prediction of new layers of information, code, and complex regulatory mechanisms in life. We’ve seen discoveries of new DNA codes (e.g., multiple meanings for synonymous codons), as well as the histone code, the RNA splicing code, the sugar code, and others. It’s a great time to be an ID proponent!

In response, you wrote:

Umm. . . the “new layer of information” that ID predicted was DIVINE information, not epigenetics. And the part of epigenetics that does add “information” — the epigenetic modifications of DNA already encoded in the genome — have been known for a long time. As for those “Lamarckian” modifications induced by the environment, well, that “information” is erased after a couple of generations, and so has no evolutionary import.

May I point out for the record that epigenetics can be defined as “the study of changes in organisms caused by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself,” and that the use of the term “epigenetic” to describe processes that are not heritable is highly controversial. But let that pass.

I’d now like to draw your attention to a passage from Dr. Stephen Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt (HarperOne, New York, 2013), concerning the role of epigenetic information in embryonic body-plan formation:

These different sources of epigenetic information in embryonic cells pose an enormous challenge to the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. According to neo-Darwinism, new information, form, and structure arise from natural selection acting on random mutations arising at a very low level within the biological hierarchy — within the genetic text. Yet both body-plan formation during embryological development and major morphological innovation during the history of life depend upon a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. If DNA isn’t wholly responsible for the way an embryo develops — for body-plan morphogenesis — then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely and still not produce a new body plan, regardless of the amount of time and the number of mutational trials available to the evolutionary process. Genetic mutations are simply the wrong tool for the job at hand.

Even in a best-case scenario — one that ignores the immense improbability of generating new genes by mutation and selection — mutations in DNA sequence would merely produce new genetic information. But building a new body plan requires more than just genetic information. It requires both genetic and epigenetic information — information by definition that is not stored in DNA and thus cannot be generated by mutations to the DNA. It follows that the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot by itself generate novel body plans, such as those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion. (pp. 281-282.)

So my second question for you is: will you concede that neo-Darwinism is unable to account for the origin of the epigenetic information needed to create novel body-plans (which must have occurred before the Cambrian explosion took place), and that natural selection therefore doesn’t explain all cases of apparent design in nature, falsifying your previous claim that it’s the “only game in town” for producing adaptations?

Incidentally, are you aware of any good evidence that epigenetic information is not divine in origin? If so, please elaborate.

The Watchtower Society's commentary on "Love"

LOVE:

A feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a friend, for a parent or child, and so forth; warm fondness or liking for another; also, the benevolent affection of God for his creatures or the reverent affection due from them to God; also, the kindly affection properly expressed by God’s creatures toward one another; that strong or passionate affection for a person of the opposite sex that constitutes the emotional incentive to conjugal union. One of the synonyms for love is “devotion.”

Aside from those meanings, the Scriptures speak also of love guided by principle, as love of righteousness or even love for one’s enemies, for whom a person may not have affection. This facet or expression of love is an unselfish devotion to righteousness and a sincere concern for the lasting welfare of others, along with an active expression of this for their good.

The verb ʼa·hevʹ or ʼa·havʹ (“love”) and the noun ʼa·havahʹ (“love”) are the words primarily used in Hebrew to denote love in the foregoing senses, the context determining the sense and degree meant.

The Christian Greek Scriptures mainly employ forms of the words a·gaʹpe, phi·liʹa, and two words drawn from stor·geʹ (eʹros, love between the sexes, not being used). A·gaʹpe appears more frequently than the other terms.

Of the noun a·gaʹpe and the verb a·ga·paʹo, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says: “Love can be known only from the actions it prompts. God’s love is seen in the gift of His Son, I John 4:9, 10. But obviously this is not the love of complacency, or affection, that is, it was not drawn out by any excellency in its objects, Rom. 5:8. It was an exercise of the Divine will in deliberate choice, made without assignable cause save that which lies in the nature of God Himself, cp. Deut. 7:7, 8.”—1981, Vol. 3, p. 21.

Regarding the verb phi·leʹo, Vine comments: “[It] is to be distinguished from agapao in this, that phileo more nearly represents tender affection. . . . Again, to love (phileo) life, from an undue desire to preserve it, forgetful of the real object of living, meets with the Lord’s reproof, John 12:25. On the contrary, to love life (agapao) as used in I Pet. 3:10, is to consult the true interests of living. Here the word phileo would be quite inappropriate.”—Vol. 3, pp. 21, 22.

James Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, in its Greek dictionary (1890, pp. 75, 76), remarks under phi·leʹo: “To be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while [a·ga·paʹo] is wider, embracing espec. the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety . . . ).”—See AFFECTION.

A·gaʹpe, therefore, carries the meaning of love guided, or governed, by principle. It may or may not include affection and fondness. That a·gaʹpe may include affection and warmth is evident in many passages. At John 3:35, Jesus said: “The Father loves [a·ga·paiʹ] the Son.” At John 5:20, he said: “The Father has affection for [phi·leiʹ] the Son.” Certainly God’s love for Jesus Christ is coupled with much affection. Also Jesus explained: “He that loves [a·ga·ponʹ] me will be loved [a·ga·pe·theʹse·tai] by my Father, and I will love [a·ga·peʹso] him.” (Joh 14:21) This love of the Father and of the Son is accompanied by tender affection for such loving persons. Jehovah’s worshipers must love him and his Son, as well as one another, in the same way.—Joh 21:15-17.

So, although distinguished by respect for principle, a·gaʹpe is not unfeeling; otherwise it would not differ from cold justice. But it is not ruled by feeling or sentiment; it never ignores principle. Christians rightly show a·gaʹpe toward others for whom they may feel no affection or fondness, doing so for the welfare of those persons. (Ga 6:10) Yet, though not feeling affection, they do feel compassion and sincere concern for such fellow humans, to the limits and in the way that righteous principles allow and direct.

However, while a·gaʹpe refers to love governed by principle, there are good and bad principles. A wrong kind of a·gaʹpe could be expressed, guided by bad principles. For example, Jesus said: “If you love [a·ga·paʹte] those loving you, of what credit is it to you? For even the sinners love those loving them. And if you do good to those doing good to you, really of what credit is it to you? Even the sinners do the same. Also, if you lend without interest to those from whom you hope to receive, of what credit is it to you? Even sinners lend without interest to sinners that they may get back as much.” (Lu 6:32-34) The principle upon which such ones operate is: ‘Do good to me and I will do good to you.’

The apostle Paul said of one who had worked alongside him: “Demas has forsaken me because he loved [a·ga·peʹsas] the present system of things.” (2Ti 4:10) Demas apparently loved the world on the principle that love of it will bring material benefits. Jesus says: “Men have loved [e·gaʹpe·san] the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. For he that practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works may not be reproved.” (Joh 3:19, 20) Because it is a truth or principle that darkness helps cover their wicked deeds, they love it.

Jesus commanded: “Love [a·ga·paʹte] your enemies.” (Mt 5:44) God himself established the principle, as the apostle Paul states: “God recommends his own love [a·gaʹpen] to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . . For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” (Ro 5:8-10) An outstanding instance of such love is God’s dealing with Saul of Tarsus, who became the apostle Paul. (Ac 9:1-16; 1Ti 1:15) Loving our enemies, therefore, should be governed by the principle established by God and should be exercised in obedience to his commandments, whether or not such love is accompanied by any warmth or affection.

God. The apostle John writes: “God is love.” (1Jo 4:8) He is the very personification of love, which is his dominant quality. The converse is not true, however, that ‘love (the abstract quality) is God.’ He reveals himself in the Bible as a Person and figuratively speaks of his “eyes,” “hands,” “heart,” “soul,” and so forth. He also has other attributes, among them justice, power, and wisdom. (De 32:4; Job 36:22; Re 7:12) Moreover, he has the capacity to hate, a quality the very opposite of love. His love of righteousness requires his hatred of wickedness. (De 12:31; Pr 6:16) Love includes the feeling and expression of warm personal affection, which only a person can have, or which can be extended toward a person. Certainly God’s Son Jesus Christ is not an abstract quality; he spoke of being with his Father, working with him, pleasing him, and hearing him, as well as of angels beholding the face of his Father, things impossible with a mere abstract quality.—Mt 10:32; 18:10; Joh 5:17; 6:46; 8:28, 29, 40; 17:5.

Evidence of his love. The evidence that Jehovah the Creator and God of the universe is love is abundant. This can be seen in the physical creation itself. With what remarkable care it has been made for the health, pleasure, and welfare of man! Man is made not just to exist but to enjoy eating, to delight in viewing the color and beauty of creation, to enjoy animals as well as the company of his fellowmen, and to find pleasure in the countless other delights of living. (Ps 139:14, 17, 18) But Jehovah has displayed his love even more by making man in his image and likeness (Ge 1:26, 27), with the capacity for love and for spirituality, and by revealing himself to man through his Word and his holy spirit.—1Co 2:12, 13.

Jehovah’s love toward mankind is that of a Father toward his children. (Mt 5:45) He spares nothing that is for their good, no matter what it costs him; his love transcends anything that we can feel or express. (Eph 2:4-7; Isa 55:8; Ro 11:33) His greatest manifestation of love, the most loving thing that a parent can do, he did for mankind. That was the giving of the life of his own faithful, only-begotten Son. (Joh 3:16) As the apostle John writes: “As for us, we love, because he first loved us.” (1Jo 4:19) He is, accordingly, the Source of love. John’s fellow apostle, Paul, writes: “For hardly will anyone die for a righteous man; indeed, for the good man, perhaps, someone even dares to die. But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”—Ro 5:7, 8; 1Jo 4:10.

God’s everlasting love. Jehovah’s love for his faithful servants is everlasting; it does not fail or diminish, no matter in what circumstances, high or low, his servants may be, or what things, great or small, may come against them. The apostle Paul exclaimed: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”—Ro 8:38, 39.

God’s sovereignty based on love. Jehovah glories in the fact that his sovereignty and the support of it by his creatures is based primarily on love. He desires only those who love his sovereignty because of his fine qualities and because it is righteous, who prefer his sovereignty to any other. (1Co 2:9) They choose to serve under his sovereignty rather than try to be independent—this because of their knowledge of him and of his love, justice, and wisdom, which they realize far surpasses their own. (Ps 84:10, 11) The Devil failed in this respect, egotistically seeking independence for himself, as did Adam and Eve. In fact, the Devil challenged God’s way of ruling, saying, in effect, that it was unloving, unrighteous (Ge 3:1-5), and that God’s creatures served Him not because of love, but through selfishness.—Job 1:8-12; 2:3-5.

Jehovah God allowed the Devil to live and to put his servants, even his only-begotten Son, to the test, to the point of death. God foretold the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. (Isa 53) How could he do this, staking his word on his Son? Because of love. Jehovah knew his Son and knew the love his Son had for Him and for righteousness. (Heb 1:9) He knew his Son most intimately and thoroughly. (Mt 11:27) He had full trust and confidence in the Son’s faithfulness. More than that, “love . . . is a perfect bond of union.” (Col 3:14) It is the most powerful bond in the universe, perfect love bonding the Son and the Father together unbreakably. For like reasons, God could trust his organization of servants, knowing that love would hold most of them immovably to him under test and that his organization of creatures would never secede in toto.—Ps 110:3.

Jesus Christ. Because for untold ages Jesus associated most closely with his Father, the Source of love, and knew Him most intimately and thoroughly, he could say: “He that has seen me has seen the Father also.” (Joh 14:9; Mt 11:27) Therefore Jesus’ love is complete, perfect. (Eph 3:19) He told his disciples: “No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends.” (Joh 15:13) He had told them: “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” (Joh 13:34) This commandment was new, in that the Law, under which Jesus and his disciples were at that time, commanded a person: “You must love your fellow [or neighbor] as yourself.” (Le 19:18; Mt 22:39) It called for love of others as of oneself but not for a self-sacrificing love that went even to the point of giving one’s own life in behalf of another. Jesus’ life and death exemplified the love this new commandment called for. In addition to doing good when the occasion arises, the follower of Christ is to take the initiative, under Christ’s direction, to help others spiritually and otherwise. He is to work actively for their good. The preaching and teaching of the good news to others, some of whom may be enemies, is one of the greatest expressions of love, for it can result in everlasting life to them. The Christian must ‘impart not only the good news of God but also his own soul’ in helping and working with those who accept the good news. (1Th 2:8) And he should be ready to surrender his soul (life) in behalf of them.—1Jo 3:16.

How One Acquires Love. Through holy spirit, the first man and woman were created with a measure of this dominant attribute of God, namely love, and with the capacity to extend, enlarge, and enrich that love. Love is a fruit of God’s spirit. (Ga 5:22) Godly love is not a quality that one has without knowing why, as may be the case with certain physical or mental abilities, such as physical beauty, talent in music, or similar inherited qualities. Godly love cannot exist in the person apart from knowledge and service of God or apart from meditation and appreciation. Only by cultivating love can one become an imitator of God, the Source of love. (Ps 77:11; Eph 5:1, 2; Ro 12:2) Adam failed to cultivate love of God; he did not progress toward perfection of love. This is shown by his not being in union with God, bound to God by that perfect bond of union. Adam, nevertheless, even though imperfect and sinful, passed on to his offspring, “in his image,” the ability and capacity to love. (Ge 5:3) Humankind in general expresses love, but it is often a misguided, deteriorated, twisted love.

Love can be misguided. For these reasons, it is evident that a person can have real, properly directed love only by seeking and following God’s spirit and the knowledge that comes from His Word. For example, a parent may have affection for his child. But he may let that love deteriorate or he may be misguided because of sentimentality, giving the child everything and denying him nothing. He may not exercise his parental authority in giving discipline and at times actual chastisement. (Pr 22:15) Such supposed love may actually be family pride, which is selfishness. The Bible says such a person is exercising, not love, but hate, because he is not taking the course that will save his child’s life.—Pr 13:24; 23:13, 14.

This is not the love that comes from God. Godly love causes one to do what is good and beneficial for the other person. “Love builds up.” (1Co 8:1) Love is not sentimentality. It is firm, strong, directed by godly wisdom, adhering first of all to that which is chaste, right. (Jas 3:17) God demonstrated this with Israel, whom he punished severely for disobedience, for their own everlasting welfare. (De 8:5; Pr 3:12; Heb 12:6) The apostle Paul says to Christians: “It is for discipline you are enduring. God is dealing with you as with sons. For what son is he that a father does not discipline? . . . Furthermore, we used to have fathers who were of our flesh to discipline us, and we used to give them respect. Shall we not much more subject ourselves to the Father of our spiritual life and live? For they for a few days used to discipline us according to what seemed good to them, but he does so for our profit that we may partake of his holiness. True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness.”—Heb 12:7-11.

Knowledge gives love right direction. Love must be directed first to God, above all others. Otherwise it will become misdirected and even lead into the worship of a creature or thing. Knowing God’s purposes is essential, because a person knows then what is best for his own welfare and that of others and will know how to express love in the proper way. Our love for God is to be with our ‘whole heart, mind, soul, and strength.’ (Mt 22:36-38; Mr 12:29, 30) It is to be, not merely an outward expression, but a love that reflects the total inner person. Love involves the emotions. (1Pe 1:22) But if the mind is not equipped with knowledge of what true love is and how it acts, love can be expressed in the wrong direction. (Jer 10:23; 17:9; compare Php 1:9.) The mind must know God and his qualities, his purposes, and how he expresses love. (1Jo 4:7) In harmony with this, and since love is the most important quality, dedication to God is to the person of Jehovah himself (in whom love is the dominant quality) and is not to a work or a cause. Then, love must be carried out with the soul, every fiber of one’s organism; and all one’s strength must be put behind that effort.

Love is expansive. The true love that is a fruit of God’s spirit is expansive. (2Co 6:11-13) It is not stingy, confined, or circumscribed. It must be shared to be complete. A person must first love God (De 6:5), his Son (Eph 6:24), and then the whole association of his Christian brothers throughout the world (1Pe 2:17; 1Jo 2:10; 4:20, 21). He must love his wife; and she, her husband. (Pr 5:18, 19; Ec 9:9; Eph 5:25, 28, 33) Love is to be extended to one’s children. (Tit 2:4) All mankind, even a person’s own enemies, are to be loved, and Christian works are to be exercised toward them. (Mt 5:44; Lu 6:32-36) The Bible, commenting on the fruits of the spirit, of which love is first, says: “Against such things there is no law.” (Ga 5:22, 23) This love has no law that can limit it. It may be practiced at any time or place, to any extent, toward those to whom it is due. In fact, the only debt Christians should be owing one another is love. (Ro 13:8) This love for one another is an identifying mark of true Christians.—Joh 13:35.

How Godly Love Acts. Love, such as God is, is so wonderful that it is hard to define. It is easier to tell how it acts. In the following discussion of this fine quality, its application to Christians will be considered. The apostle Paul, in writing on the subject, first emphasizes how essential it is for a Christian believer and then details how it acts unselfishly: “Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”—1Co 13:4-7.

“Love is long-suffering and kind.” It puts up with unfavorable conditions and wrong actions of others, doing so with a purpose, namely, to work out the eventual salvation of those doing wrong or of others involved in the circumstances, as well as to vindicate, finally, Jehovah’s sovereignty. (2Pe 3:15) Love is kind, no matter what the provocation may be. Roughness or harshness on the part of a Christian toward others would not accomplish any good. Nonetheless, love can be firm and act in justice in behalf of righteousness. Those having authority may discipline wrongdoers, but even then, they are to employ kindness. Unkindness would bring benefit neither to the unkind counselor nor to the one doing unrighteousness, but it could separate that one even farther from repentance and right works.—Ro 2:4; Eph 4:32; Tit 3:4, 5.

“Love is not jealous.” It is not envious of good things coming to others. It rejoices in seeing a fellowman receive a position of greater responsibility. It does not begrudge even one’s enemies receiving good things. It is generous. God makes his rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Mt 5:45) God’s servants who have love are content with their lot (1Ti 6:6-8) and their place, not getting out of place or selfishly seeking the position occupied by another. Satan the Devil selfishly and enviously did get out of place, even desiring worship to be given to him by Jesus Christ.—Lu 4:5-8.

Love “does not brag, does not get puffed up.” It does not seek the applause and admiration of creatures. (Ps 75:4-7; Jude 16) The person having love will not push another person down to make himself appear greater. Rather, he will exalt God and will sincerely encourage and build up other persons. (Ro 1:8; Col 1:3-5; 1Th 1:2, 3) He will be happy to see another Christian make advancement. And he will not boast of what he is going to do. (Pr 27:1; Lu 12:19, 20; Jas 4:13-16) He will realize that all he does is due to the strength coming from Jehovah. (Ps 34:2; 44:8) Jehovah told Israel: “Let the one bragging about himself brag about himself because of this very thing, the having of insight and the having of knowledge of me, that I am Jehovah, the One exercising loving-kindness, justice and righteousness in the earth; for in these things I do take delight.”—Jer 9:24; 1Co 1:31.

Love “does not behave indecently.” It is not ill-mannered. It does not engage in indecent behavior, such as sexual abuses or shocking conduct. It is not rude, vulgar, discourteous, insolent, coarse, or disrespectful to anyone. A person who has love will avoid doing things that, in appearance or actions, disturb his Christian brothers. Paul instructed the congregation at Corinth: “Let all things take place decently and by arrangement.” (1Co 14:40) Love will also prompt one to walk honorably in the view of others who are not Christian believers.—Ro 13:13; 1Th 4:12; 1Ti 3:7.

Love “does not look for its own interests.” It follows the principle: “Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.” (1Co 10:24) Here is where concern for the everlasting welfare of others shows itself. This sincere concern for others is one of the strongest motivating forces in love as well as one of the most effective and beneficial in its results. The possessor of love does not demand that everything be done his way. Paul said: “To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, that I might by all means save some. But I do all things for the sake of the good news, that I may become a sharer of it with others.” (1Co 9:22, 23) Neither does love demand its “rights”; it is more concerned with the spiritual welfare of the other person.—Ro 14:13, 15.

Love “does not become provoked.” It does not look for an occasion or an excuse for provocation. It is not moved to outbursts of anger, which is a work of the flesh. (Ga 5:19, 20) One having love is not easily offended by what others say or do. He is not afraid that his personal “dignity” may be injured.

Love “does not keep account of the injury.” (Literally, it is not “reckoning the bad thing”; Int.) It does not consider itself to be injured and so lay up that injury as something ‘on the books of account,’ to be settled, or paid off, in due time, in the meantime permitting no relations between the injured and the injurer. That would be a vengeful spirit, condemned in the Bible. (Le 19:18; Ro 12:19) Love will not impute evil motives to another but will be inclined to make allowances and give others the benefit of the doubt.—Ro 14:1, 5.

Love “does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.” Love rejoices with the truth even though it upsets previous beliefs held or statements made. It sticks with God’s Word of truth. It always sides with the right, finding no pleasure in wrong, in lies, or in any form of injustice, no matter who the victim is, even if he is an enemy. However, if a thing is wrong or misleading, love does not fear to speak out in the interests of truth and of others. (Ga 2:11-14) Also, it prefers to suffer wrong rather than commit another wrong in an attempt to straighten out the matter. (Ro 12:17, 20) But if another person is properly corrected by one having authority, the loving person will not sentimentally side with the chastised one and find fault with the correction or the authorized one who did the correcting. Such an action would not be an expression of love for the individual. It might gain the favor of the corrected one, but it would harm rather than help him.

Love “bears all things.” It is willing to endure, to suffer for righteousness’ sake. A literal rendering is, “all things it is covering.” (Int) A person having love will be slow to expose to others the one who wrongs him. If the offense is not too serious, he will overlook it. Otherwise, when the course recommended by Jesus at Matthew 18:15-17 is applicable, he will follow it. In such cases, if the other person asks forgiveness after the wrong is privately pointed out to him, and repairs the damage, the one having love will show that his forgiveness is real, that it has completely covered the matter, as God has.—Pr 10:12; 17:9; 1Pe 4:7, 8.

Love “believes all things.” Love has faith in the things God has said in his Word of truth, even if outward appearances are against it and the unbelieving world scoffs. This love, especially toward God, is a recognition of his truthfulness, based on his record of faithfulness and reliability, just as we know and love a true, faithful friend and do not doubt when he tells us something for which we may not have proof. (Jos 23:14) Love believes all God says, though it may not be able to grasp it thoroughly, and it is willing to wait patiently until the matter is more fully explained or until getting a clear understanding. (1Co 13:9-12; 1Pe 1:10-13) Love also trusts in God’s direction of the Christian congregation and his appointed servants and backs up their decisions based on God’s Word. (1Ti 5:17; Heb 13:17) However, love is not gullible, for it follows the counsel of God’s Word to “test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God,” and it tests everything by the measuring rule of the Bible. (1Jo 4:1; Ac 17:11, 12) Love produces confidence in one’s faithful Christian brothers; a Christian would not suspect them or disbelieve them unless there was absolute proof that they were wrong.—2Co 2:3; Ga 5:10; Phm 21.

Love “hopes all things.” It has hope in all the things Jehovah has promised. (Ro 12:12; Heb 3:6) It continues to work, waiting patiently for Jehovah to bring fruitage, to make things grow. (1Co 3:7) A person having love will hope the best for his Christian brothers through any circumstances in which they might be, even though some may be weak in faith. He will realize that if Jehovah is patient with such weak ones, he should certainly adopt the same attitude. (2Pe 3:15) And he continues to assist those he is helping to learn the truth, hoping and waiting for them to be moved by God’s spirit to serve him.

Love “endures all things.” Love is required for the Christian to keep his integrity toward Jehovah God. Despite whatever the Devil may do to test the soundness of the Christian’s devotion and faithfulness to God, love will endure in a way that holds the Christian true to God.—Ro 5:3-5; Mt 10:22.

“Love never fails.” It will never come to an end or cease to exist. New knowledge and understanding may correct things we once believed; hope changes as the hoped-for things are realized and new things are hoped for, but love always remains in its fullness and continues to be built up stronger and stronger.—1Co 13:8-13.

“A Time to Love.” Love is held back only from those whom Jehovah shows are unworthy of it, or from those set in a course of badness. Love is extended to all persons until they show they are haters of God. Then the time comes for love’s expression toward them to end. Both Jehovah God and Jesus Christ love righteousness and hate lawlessness. (Ps 45:7; Heb 1:9) Those who intensely hate the true God are not persons toward whom love is to be expressed. Indeed, it would accomplish no good to continue exercising love toward such ones, for those who hate God will not respond to God’s love. (Ps 139:21, 22; Isa 26:10) Therefore God properly hates them and has a time to act against them.—Ps 21:8, 9; Ec 3:1, 8.

Things Not to Be Loved. The apostle John writes: “Do not be loving either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world.” (1Jo 2:15, 16) He says, later on, “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1Jo 5:19) Accordingly, those who love God hate every wicked way.—Ps 101:3; 119:104, 128; Pr 8:13; 13:5.

While the Bible shows that a husband and wife should love each other and that this love includes the conjugal relationship (Pr 5:18, 19; 1Co 7:3-5), it points out the wrongness of the fleshly, worldly practice of sexual love toward another not one’s spouse. (Pr 7:18, 19, 21-23) Another worldly thing is materialism, “love of money” (phi·lar·gy·riʹa, literally, “fondness of silver”; Int), which is a root of all sorts of injurious things.—1Ti 6:10; Heb 13:5.

Jesus Christ warned against seeking glory from men. He scathingly denounced the hypocritical religious leaders of the Jews who liked to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the broad ways to be visible to men and who loved the prominent places at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues. He pointed out that they had already received in full their reward, that which they loved and desired, namely, honor and glory from men; therefore no reward at all was due them from God. (Mt 6:5; 23:2, 5-7; Lu 11:43) The record reads: “Many even of the rulers actually put faith in [Jesus], but because of the Pharisees they would not confess him, in order not to be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men more than even the glory of God.”—Joh 12:42, 43; 5:44.

In speaking to his disciples, Jesus said: “He that is fond of [phi·lonʹ] his soul destroys it, but he that hates his soul in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life.” (Joh 12:23-25) A person who prefers to protect his life now rather than to be willing to lay down his life as a follower of Christ will lose out on everlasting life, but one who considers life in this world as secondary, and who loves Jehovah and Christ and their righteousness above everything else, will receive everlasting life.

God hates liars, for they have no love of the truth. He declared to the apostle John in vision: “Outside [the holy city, New Jerusalem] are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone liking [phi·lonʹ] and carrying on a lie.”—Re 22:15; 2Th 2:10-12.


One’s Love Can Cool Off. Jesus Christ, in telling his disciples of the things ahead, indicated that the love (a·gaʹpe) of many who professed belief in God would cool off. (Mt 24:3, 12) The apostle Paul said that, as a feature of the critical times to come, men would become “lovers of money.” (2Ti 3:1, 2) It is evident, therefore, that a person can lose sight of right principles and that the proper love he once had can fade away. This emphasizes the importance of constant exercise and development of love by meditation on God’s Word and by molding one’s life according to His principles.—Eph 4:15, 22-24.