Complexity all the way down?

 

More on why ancient humans were Just as human.

 Fossil Friday: Stone Huts, Homo habilis, and Gutsick Gibbon

Günter Bechly

This Fossil Friday will be a bit different and will show you how an aspiring young anthropologist came to agree that a young earth creationist video made a valid point against human evolution. Here is the truly remarkable story.

A PhD student of biological anthropology named Erika runs one of the more popular anti-creationist YouTube channels under her pseudonym Gutsick Gibbon. Apparently, she feels she has to hide her real identity behind a pseudonym, because it is so “dangerous” to publicly defend the mainstream consensus in academia and mock dissenters, who risked or even sacrifized their careers by speaking out. Nevertheless, I had a quite civil and long debate with her, which you can watch online if you have the enthusiasm for almost 3.5 hours of talking about “The Fossil Record, Evolution, and Intelligent Design.” I thought that after this conversation it might be worthwhile to stay in touch and so I emailed her (June 2 and 3, 2021) with some detailed information she had asked for in our talk concerning anti-freeze proteins and mutation rates in whales. Unfortunately she never responded to my mails.

Anyway, I recently stumbled upon a new video from her on atheist Aron Ra’s YouTube channel, which is part of a series of rebuttal videos against the documentary movie Genesis Impact that you can watch for free on YouTube as well. The latter was produced by an American Young Earth creationist organization named Genesis Apologetics. Since I am not a proponent of this view at all, and am on record as subscribing to an Old Earth and common descent, I might be an unlikely candidate to defend this movie against attacks. However, when I watched, I found it quite well done and well researched, certainly not without errors but raising many valid point against the mainstream view on human evolution. On the other hand, the reaction video “Rebutting Genesis Impact 5 — Homo habilis,” by Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon, was not just beyond awful and factually bonkers, but also exhibited a very off-putting arrogance that backfires badly. Let’s have a look at the background information first.

The Background Information

The Genesis Impact movie made the following argument against Homo habilis as a transitional form between ape-like australopithecines and modern humans (time code 36:55-39:42):

In the lowest archaeological beds of the Olduvai Gorge site in Kenya, where the type fossils of the ancient hominin Homo habilis were discovered, the scientists also found a 12-foot circular stone hut foundation made of lava rocks, and this structure had 6 heaps of stone spaced 2-2.5 feet apart for inserting support poles. They described the stone circle as having a striking similarity to the shelters made by present day nomads in the area today. The movie also emphasizes the point that outside the hut area 348 bones of 8 species of slaughtered animals were found but only 11 small fragments and teeth inside the hut area. Thus, 97% of the animal bones were found outside the hut foundations. Likewise, 96% (48 of 50 pieces) of the by-product flakes and chips from stone tool production (called debitage) were found outside the hut foundations.

The movie then concludes that this evidence suggests modern humans lived here and not apes or ape-men. The movie reports that this aligns with the opinion of Mary Leakey, the leading paleoexpert for this locality, who argued that the huts were man-made artificial structures because of the distribution of stones in the stone circle and the disproportionate distribution of animal bones and stone tool flakes inside and outside the stone circle, including a two foot buffer zone around the circle. Leakey said that the structure looked very much like the stone hut foundations people in the same area built today. The movie even shows a slide with a photo of such a hut labeled “Leakey 1979 Plate 3” as its source. Keep this in mind, as it will be important later on.

The argument is also elaborated with more background information on the movie’s accompanying webpage on Homo habilis by Genesis Apologetics, which provides further sources to Leakey (1971 [sic should be 1972], 1979). It also makes clear that “The Stone Circle was found at DK IA, Level 3, Lower Bed I, and several Homo habilis bones were found above this structure.”

Embarrassingly Dumb

In their embarrassingly dumb rebuttal video, Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon spend large parts of their 1.5 hour time on stuff that has nothing at all to do with the Genesis Impact movie, such as the straw man argument “If we came from monkeys, why are their still monkeys?”, which is nowhere found in the movie, or stuff about the origin of bird feathers, which is totally unrelated to the movie, as well as boring stereotypical rants about how stupid religious believers are and how wonderful enlightened scientists are. When they address the movie they either avoid the main points or even implicitly confirm them, but consider them irrelevant. The only substantial critique in the video that allegedly debunks a central argument concerns the issue of the stone circle (time code 45:52-54:17). Gutsick Gibbon, who was invited by Aron Ra as an expert on human origins, argues that this is all creationist nonsense and false information, based on misunderstanding real science and either deliberate lies or at least careless confusion of two different archaeological sites in Kenya: one the Early Pleistocene site of Olduvai Gorge where Homo habilis was found in the 1960s, and the other the Iron Age site of Hyrax Hill, where stone huts were found in the 1930s.

Why I Am Bothering

The reason I decided to waste my time in responding to the total garbage video by Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon is that it implicitly also attacks me. This is because I had basically made the same point about the stone huts in a Fossil Friday article last summer (Bechly 2023a), which also argues that we now know, that more modern Homo erectus was a contemporary of Homo habilis and the latter rather an australopithecine, which was not a “handy man” but more likely the bushmeat game of real human hunters, who built the stone huts and stone tools.

So, is this true? Did Genesis Impact and I get the facts right, or is Gutsick Gibbon right with her assumed debunking of the stone hut argument? Well, you don’t even need to dive deep into the technical literature, which would of course drive this point home beyond any doubt, such as the excavation reports by Leakey (1972) or the standard textbook on paleoanthropology (Biagi 2015), or various articles (e.g., Potts 1984, Straus 1989).

It would have been fully sufficient to google to find some brief blog posts (e.g., Rensberger 2007) about the discovery or even simply check Wikipedia, which explicitly affirms the claim with sources:

In 1962, a 366 cm × 427 cm × 30 cm (12 ft × 14 ft × 1 ft) circle made with volcanic rocks was discovered in Olduvai Gorge. At 61–76 cm (2–2.5 ft) intervals, rocks were piled up to 15–23 cm (6–9 in) high. Mary Leakey suggested the rock piles were used to support poles stuck into the ground, possibly to support a windbreak or a rough hut. Some modern-day nomadic tribes build similar low-lying rock walls to build temporary shelters upon, bending upright branches as poles and using grasses or animal hide as a screen.[58] Dating to 1.75 mya, it is attributed to some early Homo, and is the oldest-claimed evidence of architecture.[59]

The Wikipedia article on the Olduvai Gorge locality even specifies that it was the older Bed I dated to 1.75-1.9 million years, where the stone circle was found by Leakey, and gives Leakey (1979: 11-17, 40) as source. Don’t trust Wikipedia? You shouldn’t indeed. But maybe you’d rather trust the prestigious Encyclopaedia Britannica, which mentions in its article on the Oldowan industry that “stones arranged in a circle found in Bed I at Olduvai Gorge may have served as weights to hold down the edges of a windbreak used by early hominids.”

This archaeological fact has also made it into many books, such as the book by Tim Ingold, professor on social anthropology at the University of Aberdeen, who wrote (Ingold 2000: 184):

It is in this light that we can understand the extraordinary significance that has been attached to the so-called ‘stone circle’ discovered at the famous site of Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, and dated to some 1.75 million years ago (Figure 10.7). In her interpretation of the circle, Mary Leakey writes that in its general appearance, it ‘resembles temporary structures often made by present-day nomadic peoples who build a low stone wall round their dwellings to serve either as a windbreak or as a base to support upright branches which are bent over and covered with either skins or grass’ (1971: 24). A photograph of such a dwelling, from the Okombambi people of Southwest Africa, is provided to substantiate the comparison.

In the accompanying figure 10.7 it is even more precisely specified as “The ‘stone circle’ from Bed I of Olduvai Gorge.” It is the same figure from Mary Leakey’s (1971/1972) excavation report that was shown in the movie, and that clearly features the stone circle as well as the various found animal bones with their determinations. This association of the bones and the circle is an important fact that Gutsick Gibbon did not grasp and boldly shrugs off in her video response as made-up nonsense.

I suggest it would not have been too much to ask from a PhD student to at least google or check an encyclopedia, before slandering others for incompetence or even accusing them of lying by alleged spreading of false information. Obviously, our anonymous Erika still has to learn a lot about paleoanthropology before she is ready for a PhD in this field, starting with basics like properly researching sources. However, if you are so careless in your research, and obviously guided by prejudice and bias, then maybe science is not really your thing.

But what about this other iron age site? Indeed, Leakey et al. (1943) had also described iron age huts from a different site in Kenya called Hyrax Hill thirty years before the discoveries of the stone circle at the Homo habilis site of Olduvai Gorge. The two have nothing to do with each other, and it is Gutsick Gibbon who is confusing the two and is ignorant about the discovery at Olduvai Gorge, even though this was clearly explained in elaborate detail in the reviewed movie with all sources provided.

Cheeky Incompetence

To document the stunning amount of cheeky incompetence and also a very surprising admission, I here provide the transcripts (with time code) from the relevant parts of the video by Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon together with my comments, but you really should watch the video passages afterwards to have a good laugh:

41:51-41:49: “They don’t look at the skulls. They obfuscate and talk about these Stone huts. That again we’re going to get to. So it’s remarkably frustrating.”

Yes, it is remarkably frustrating. How you are going to get the point of the stone huts wrong?

After showing a snippet of the movie, which poses the question of whether the stone tools were used by or on Homo habilis, Gutsick Gibbon commented:

46:19-46:59: “Okay, so first and foremost how do we know if the stone tools are being used on something or by something. When the other remains at the site have stone tool cut marks on them and you don’t find any on the the individuals proposed to have used them. So, when you find Homo habilis with stone tools what do you do? You look at Homo habilis, does it have any cut marks on it? No! Do the other animals at the site have cut marks on them? Yes! That means that the only guy capable of using tools found at the site was probably using the stone tools on the organisms that do have cut marks on them, processing them, butchering them, etc. That is like the easiest kind of association you can make.”

Fair enough, but this ignores three important points:

Many more animal bones have been found at this locality than Homo habilis bones. So, when only a fraction of all bones has preserved cut marks, then it is statistically much more likely to find animal bones with cut marks.

Cut marks are mostly found on long bones, but only few long bones of Homo habilis have been found.

Meanwhile, hominin long bones with cut marks from this time and region have indeed be identified at the Homo habilis locality of Koobi Fora in Kenya (Pobiner et al. 2023). I reported about this in another Fossil Friday article (Bechly 2023b). This omission would arguably be excusable, as the publication of the new study overlaps with the time of the making of Aron Ra’s video.

After another snippet from the movie that talks about the 12-foot circular hut foundation nearby in the same archaeological bed, which was described as having a striking similarity to the shelters made by present-day nomadic people in the same area today, Gutsick Gibbon responds:

47:15-47:40: “You’ll notice that what they say is a circular hut nearby. So, we’re talking about the distance between Olduvai Gorge and Hyrax Hill. Hyrax Hill is where they find these Stone Huts. That’s everything that I could find on them, is that all of these these stone huts found by Mary Leakey, who they later say is the one who did the work on these circular structures, that she did her work at Hyrax Hill. That’s where they’re from.”

Nope, that’s not remotely where they are from. As already mentioned, the stone circle was clearly described from Bed 1 at Olduvai Gorge, and Gutsick Gibbon is confusing this with something totally different, because she did not bother to look at the sources provided in the movie and its accompanying website, nor did she bother to just watch the movie and listen to the argument more carefully.

Aron Ra then interrupts to proclaim triumphantly:

00:47:44-00:48:11: “If it’s a different location, and it’s a different elevation, stratigraphically, then it’s not the same thing. And if the creationists are perfectly fine with saying that it is the same thing because it suits their purpose, but if a scientist were to say that they were the same thing that would be fraudulent, why is it only a lie if the scientists do it? Why is it never a lie when the creationists do it.”

Well, because this is total rubbish and a red herring. The movie is not talking about two different localities. It’s just two clueless YouTubers making up stuff because they only hear what they want to hear and are unable to research the facts.

Gutsick Gibbon responded with a real howler:

00:48:11-00:49:22: “Well. I want to hit you with the punch line here Aron, because if you’ll remember in the last video what they said was that — [silly giggling] — what they said was that Australopithecus can’t be associated with Laetoli footprints because Lucy is too far away from the Laetoli footprints and they’re too far from each other. Never mind the fact that Australopithecus is not found just at the site with Lucy, it’s found as a species all over the place and very near the Laetoli footprints, so like that’s an aside. But their argument is that they’re too far from each other, that’s why they can’t be associated. You want to know how far away Hyrax Hill is where this stone structure is from the OH7 type specimen? It’s an eight-hour drive — [both are laughing] — it’s an eight hour drive time. It’s an eight hour drive I just pulled it up, it’s eight hours and five minutes, it is 448.6 kilometres away. Nearby? Nearby? You’ve got to be kidding me. They just throw it in there like as a little aside thing no one will notice. I always notice because I always check, because they’re always conning you, every single time.”

Oh boy. Yes, Hyrax Hill is an eight hour drive away, because you looked at the wrong locality! And Gutsick Gibbon, a PhD student in anthropology, says she is always noticing because she always checks. This is hilarious! The evidence that this is from Olduvai Gorge was plain to see in the slides in the movie. They even quoted Leakey 1979 as a reference, not Leakey 1943. They are not talking about an iron age site that was discovered 30 years earlier by Leakey at Hyrax Hill. This is shockingly embarrassing. The university system definitely has failed these guys.

Next, they show another snippet from the movie, which makes the important point that the stone circles were found in a layer beneath the bones of the Homo habilis type specimen, which suggests that more modern humans were on the scene, building huts and working with tools even before Homo habilis showed up. I totally agree and made the same point in my earlier articles (Bechly 2023a, 2023b). Gutsick Gibbon responds with more rubbish:

00:49:44-00:50:42: “Now here’s the important bit. You know, those stone circles, they were initially, um, excavated by Mary Leakey in the 1930s, as I alluded to earlier. Now, wouldn’t you know it work was done later on these stone circles, um, by I think it’s Sutton at al. in 1987. Sutton at al. in 1987, um yeah, he radiocarbon-dated some of the charcoal found at this site. They’re 200 years old. They’re from the Iron Age Stone. The circles are from the Iron Age, which is why I thought to myself, it’s quite strange you know, that they’re saying, oh you know, these stone circles they’re found in a layer below Homo habilis nearby, eight and a half hours away. Nearby, huh? Same layer, huh? [You really have to watch the video to experience the combination of ignorance and arrogance]. I couldn’t find anything on these things being in the same layer or even being close to each other, stratigraphically speaking, which makes sense given they’re from the Iron Age, right? By radiometric dating they’re found to be in the Iron Age!”

Of course, you could not find anything, because checking Wikipedia, not to speak of the primary sources, was too much work for a PhD student. The stone circle in the movie was discovered by Mary Leakey in 1962 at Olduvai Gorge, not in the 1930s at Hyrax Hill. Nobody denies that the latter locality is from the Iron Age, and the movie does not talk about it.

Gutsick Gibbon then goes on (00:50:42-00:50:18) and makes another irrelevant point, that even young earth creationists accept radiometric dating as a relative dating in terms of older and younger, so that even internally the argument that the stone circle is older than Homo habilis would not work. Again, irrelevant because it is a different site, which is not Iron Age and not younger but older than the Homo habilis bones. So, the argument is perfectly valid and supported by the evidence, which she later will admit.

A Gem of Wisdom

Aron Ra interrupts for a gem of his wisdom:

51:33-51:57: “… what generally happens, which usually happens these kind of things is you’re looking for stuff on the surface so whatever has eroded on the surface so there’s different layers of erosion and so some group go to an area where there’s a low uh a low area so so it’s going to be more eroded and then they put circle stones in a circle and build a fire 200 years ago, and that’s what they’re talking about by a lower level.”

No, they don’t. They talk about a lower level because the stone circle at Olduvai Gorge was found in the lowest archaeological Bed 1, dated to 1.75-1.9 million years by Mary Leakey (1979) in her book that is even shown as a reference in the movie, for heaven’s sake.

Gutsick Gibbon unbelievably agrees with Aron Ra’s nonsensical gibberish:

51:58-52:50: “That is my understanding because I can’t find anything in Mary Leakey’s initial publication in the 1930s that’s saying, like she doesn’t even talk about habilis, right? Like I don’t understand where the connection was drawn. I think you’re right. My understanding is that they were like they’re both on the surface therefore same layer, um. But again, I mean this is what they do, they’re taking publications from the 1930s that are very difficult for the average person to track down. If I didn’t have my university association, I couldn’t get a hold of it, right? Like, their whole point is that you can’t double check them, um, but Sutton goes in depth in 1987 of the dating of these circles. They’re not associated with Homo habilis, not even close, not even close, not even close temporally, and not even close geographically. So, like this is just it’s just nonsense again.”

Not Nonsense but a Fact

Nope, it’s not nonsense but a fact that the stone circle was found close temporally and geographically to Homo habilis. Actually, at the very same place and in the same archaeological bed as the holotype OH7, even a bit below its layers. And you don’t need a university association to track down obscure publications from the 1930s. Everybody can google the facts in a few seconds. What a joke! And it is made worse by their mean-spirited insinuations. Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon definitely owe a sincere apology to the makers of the Genesis Impact movie and an apology to their own audience that has been misinformed and mislead by their video. I won’t hold my breath, though.

Next, they play another snippet from the movie, where the portrayed scientist admits that the stone hut foundations beneath the Homo habilis bones represent a very good point.

Gutsick Gibbon actually agrees and this is the most important passage in the whole video:

53:21-54:17: “This is, this is incredibly sneaky, right, what they’ve done here. Because, if that was true, if you could actually show, uh, categorically, constructed stone monuments as being earlier than any finding of Homo habilis, that would be a very interesting point to make. That would be a good point in the sense that it would merit further investigation, but that’s not what they found. It’s simply not. It’s like brutally untrue, you see what I mean? So, like yeah, it categorically is a good point just like it would be a good point if we found a rabbit side by side with a trilobite, right? Like that would be a good point, except that’s never happened. It’s not even close, right? Like it it’s just a lie, right? Like I mean, there’s not much else to say except like, you yeah, it’d be a good point in fantasy world, right?”

Wow, we caught you now and will not let you get away with this unnoticed and will disclose and preserve it for posterity. Anthropologist Gutsick Gibbon just explicitly and unequivocally admitted that such stone circles would be a good point, an interesting and valid argument, if it were true! Since it is demonstrably true and not fantasy or a lie, it will be interesting to watch how Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon will try to whitewash this, or move the goalpost, or more likely cover up their incompetence and especially their dangerous admission.

Now, add to their complete blunder on the science, the sneering mockery about the “stupid creationists,” the scornful laughter about their assumed ignorance, and the arrogant, condescending, and patronizing style. This simply cried out to be exposed by me. Sorry Gutsick Gibbon, but these creationists got it right and you proved to be clueless about your own field and a sloppy researcher as well. Next time, better be a bit more humble and charitable, and do your homework. Actually, Aron Ra has studied paleontology at the University of Texas himself and has a bachelor’s degree in anthropology from Arizona State University, so he is as culpable for this massive blunder as is Gutsick Gibbon. But given his own obvious incompetence in spite of his academic training, Aron Ra should maybe look for some real experts for his next rebuttal video instead of giving a platform to overconfident students.

Not Known for Accuracy

Aron Ra is of course not exactly known for sharing accurate information, including about Christianity. Here is what academic historiographer Tim O’Neill (2019) had to say about him:

Unfortunately the New Atheist activist who calls himself “Aron Ra” is all too typical of this kind of polemicist — he does not let his profound ignorance of history stop him from pontificating about it. In a recent debate he put this on full display, with a remarkable burst of pseudo-historical gibberish proclaimed with supreme confidence and smug self-assurance. Yet virtually everything he said was wrong.

But surely, O’Neill is just a biased fundamentalist Christian, no? No, he is an “atheist, sceptic and rationalist who is a subscribing member of the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of the Australian Skeptics” (see here).

Here is a litmus test for Aron Ra’: In the seventh and final episode of his YouTube video series against the Genesis Impact movie, he presented a public challenge (time code 1:05:43-1:06:25, see here):

So, um, if you, if you are a fan, if you’re a creationist and you watched this long ass series that I’ve made. Show me something, anything they said in this whole series that is an actual fact, that we can both show is actually true, that hasn’t already been disproved and refuted, but is an actual fact, that is supportive of their position, that hasn’t already been shown to be a lie. And I don’t think that any, even creationists, watching this, I don’t think they’re going to, they’re going to respond to that, because they already know and they already don’t care. They want to believe what they want to believe. They don’t care what the truth is.

Really? Now, let’s see if Aron Ra, a self-declared Satanist (no kidding, see here), cares what the truth is, or if he just wants to believe what he wants to believe. Will he have the guts to admit defeat? Again, I won’t hold my breath.

Unfortunately, poorly researched and highly biased content, mixing factoids with outright falsehoods, more motivated by a dogmatic world view than by any interest in scientific truth, is symptomatic for the new generation of atheist and materialist hardcore Darwinist YouTubers such as Aron Ra, Gutsick Gibbon, Jackson Wheat, Dapper Dinosaur, or Professor Dave and their deplorable ilk. Yeah, I admit it, this case of ignorant chutzpah really steamed me, so enough ranting for today. Fortunately, you have Evolution News and other media that bring you real science and debunk the debunkers.

References

• Bechly G 2023a. Fossil Friday: To Be or Not to Be Homo. Evolution News June 23, 2023. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/06/fossil-friday-to-be-or-not-to-be-homo/
• Bechly G 2023b. Fossil Friday: Another Prediction Vindicated. Evolution News July 28, 2023. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/07/fossil-friday-another-prediction-vindicated/
• Biagi P 2015. Modeling the Past: The Paleoethnological Approach. pp. 817–843 in: Henke W & Tattersall I (eds). Handbook of Paleoanthropology. Springer, Berlin (DE), xliii+2624 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39979-4_24
• Ingold T 2000. Building, dwelling, living: how animals and people make themselves at home in the world. pp. 172–188 in: The Perception of the Environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, London (UK) and New York (NY), xiv+465 pp. [Google Books]
• Leakey MD 1971/1972. Olduvai Gorge: Volume 3, Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960-1963. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), xix+306 pp.
• Leakey MD 1979. Olduvai Gorge: My Search for Early Man. Collins, London (UK), 187 pp.
• Leakey MD, Leakey LSB, Game PM & Goodwin AJH 1943. Report on the Excavations at Hyrax Hill, Nakuru, Kenya Colony, 1937–1938. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 30(4), 271–409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00359194309519847
• O’Neill T 2019. “Aron Ra” gets everything wrong. History for Atheists August 18, 2019. https://historyforatheists.com/2019/08/aron-ra-gets-everything-wrong/
• Pobiner B, Pante M & Keevil T 2023. Early Pleistocene cut marked hominin fossil from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Scientific Reports 13:9896, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35702-7
• Potts R 1984. Home Bases and Early Hominids. American Scientist 72(4), 338–347. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27852757
• Rensberger B 2007. Oldest Stone Circle. Waking Up On Turtle Island April 7, 2007. http://wakinguponturtleisland.blogspot.com/2007/04/oldest-stone-circle.html

Cloud wars are coming?

 

Michael Behe holds court.

 Michael Behe: A Mousetrap for Darwin

Evolution News

On a classic episode of ID the Future, host Eric Anderson interviews biochemist Michael Behe about his book A Mousetrap for Darwin. In this episode, Behe explains that he was spurred to build this collection of essays by a review in the journal Science claiming he had never answered his critics on key points. That annoyed Behe, because he had, multiple times. A Mousetrap for Darwin compiles more than a hundred of his responses, some of them from difficult-to-access places. The book also contains fresh material from Dr. Behe, including some lively behind-the-scenes details about his interactions with colleagues and critics. 

In this episode, the Lehigh University biochemist answers misconceptions about irreducible complexity, responds to the claim that “molecular machines” is a misnomer, relates the surprising confessions some of his fellow biologists have made outside the spotlight about evolutionary theory, and offers his appraisal of why scientists in general don’t know what’s going on with studies in evolution or intelligent design. Behe remains optimistic, though. “You can’t deny the data forever,” he says. Download the podcast or listen to it here

New testament theology is clearly trinitarian?

 

Nuclear fusion to the rescue?

 

Never mind the origin of life,the origin of proteins is breaking Darwin?

 

Darwinism cancels naturalism?

 

On the fossil record's antiDarwinian bias.

 

The fossil record has an antiDarwinian bias? Pros and Cons

 

James Tour and Stephen Meyer quizz the sphinx

 

Matthew28:19 demystified.

 Find article here

 

Mt. 28:19 "...in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit."

 

 

The fact that "name" is singular at Matt. 28:19 is only further proof that "authority" or "power" was meant and not a personal name. If more than one person is involved, then the plural "names" would be used (compare Rev. 21:12). Even trinitarians admit that their God is composed of 3 separate persons. And each one of those "persons" has his own personal name (except, as we have seen, the holy spirit really does not)! Therefore, if personal names were intended here for these three different "persons," the plural "names" would have been used in this scripture.

Since it clearly means "in recognition of the power, or authority of," it is perfectly correct to use "name" in the singular. In fact, it must be used that way. We even recognize this in our own language today. We say, for example, "I did it in the name [singular] of love, humanity, and justice."

There is a famous statement in United States history that perfectly illustrates this use of the singular "name" when it is being used to mean "in recognition of power or authority." Ethan Allen, writing about his capture of Fort Ticonderoga in 1775, quoted the words he spoke when the British commander of that fort asked him by what authority Allen had captured it.

Ethan Allen replied:

"In the name [singular] of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress." - p. 100, A Book About American History, Stimpson, Fawcett Publ., 1962 printing. (Also see Rebels and Redcoats, p. 54, Scheer and Rankin, Mentor Books, 1959 printing; and p. 167, Vol. 1, Universal Standard Encyclopedia, the 1955 abridgment of the New Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia.)

How ludicrous it would be to conclude that Allen really meant that Jehovah and the Continental Congress had the same personal name and were both equally God!

To paraphrase the quote credited to trinitarian writer Reymond at the beginning of this section above:

"What Ethan Allen does say is this ... 'in the name [singular] of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress,' first asserting the unity of the two by combining them within the bounds of the single Name, and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article ['the']."

According to this desperate attempt by trinitarians to make trinitarian evidence from Matt. 28:19, then, the same kind of statement by Ethan Allen is evidence (because of the singular "Name" and the repeated article) that The Continental Congress is equally God! (We might also consider a British expression: "in the name of God, king and country.")

Also notice how Luke 9:26 (which actually says, "when [Jesus] comes in the glory [singular] of him [Jesus] and of the Father and of the holy angels") is "first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single [glory], and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article." But, here, of course, the angels, too, make up the "trinity." We have, then, God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy angels!

If Jesus were really saying that Jehovah, Jesus, and the holy spirit had personal names and these names must be used during baptism, he would have used the plural word "names" at Matt. 28:19. And we would see the Father's personal name ("Jehovah" - Is. 63:16; 64:8 - Ps. 83:18 and Luke 1:32 - Exodus 3:15 and Acts 3:13) and the Son's personal name ("Jesus" - Luke 1:31, 32) and the holy spirit's personal name ("?") all being used in Christian baptism ceremonies for the past 1900 years.

Honestly now, how many religions actually use the personal names "Jehovah," "Jesus," and "(??)" when baptizing? - ("We baptize you in the names of 'Jehovah,' 'Jesus,' and '???'.") Or, since a few anti-Watchtower trinitarians even claim that the singular "name" at Matt. 28:19 is really "Jehovah," how many religions really use the personal name "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") when baptizing? ("We baptize you in Jehovah's name.") Any church that does not do so, must be admitting, in effect, that "name" in this scripture does not mean personal name!

In spite of the extreme weakness of the trinitarian "evidence" for Matt. 28:19, it is nearly always cited by trinitarians because, incredibly poor as it is, it is one of their very best trinitarian "proofs"! And it is generally hailed by trinitarians as the best evidence for the deity of the holy spirit! This certainly shows how extremely weak the scriptural evidence is for a trinity!

On chirality and life.

 

Time for the sphinx to answer a riddle?

 James Tour Offers Three-Year Challenge to Lee Cronin to Demonstrate Legitimacy of Assembly Theory

Brian Miller

Rice University chemist James Tour recently lectured on the aftermath of his debate at Harvard University with University of Glasgow professor of chemistry Lee Cronin over the state of research into life’s origin. During the debate, Cronin promoted his Assembly Theory as a key tool in addressing life’s origin. Tour in a recent lecture offered a three-year challenge to Cronin. If Cronin can demonstrate that Assembly Theory provides any insight into life’s origin, Tour pledged to remove all his videos critiquing origins research and never publicly discuss the topic again. 

Background

The three-year challenge is an extension of Tour’s 60-day challenge to ten leading origins researchers to demonstrate that they have meaningfully addressed any of the most fundamental challenges to explaining life’s origin through natural processes. None of the experts even attempted to argue that anyone’s research had achieved any significant results. The ten were all invited to Harvard to respond to Tour’s critique of their field, but none accepted except Cronin. And Cronin would not participate unless Tour agreed to several restrictions. 

Tour was not allowed to speak during the dinner conversation unless he was asked a question. Tour also had to stop speaking if he was interrupted, and he could not interrupt anyone else who spoke. Despite these restrictions, the outcome of the debate illustrated why the other nine experts were wise in not showing up. 

Tour demonstrated why no one has any understanding of the most fundamental challenges in explaining how life originated. Tour also predicted that Cronin would not even discuss the chemistry. At this point, Cronin could have adjusted his talk to prove Tour wrong by explaining how he or others have progressed even a tiny bit in addressing at least one of the cited problems. Yet as predicted, Cronin did not discuss any chemistry or other relevant topic. Instead, he presented his Assembly Theory, which offers no explanation for any stage in an origin-of-life scenario. 

The Danger of Drinking and Tweeting

During Tour’s recent lecture, he described his continued interactions with Cronin. Of particular note, Cronin expressed great displeasure over Tour quoting his October 28, 2021, tweet where he stated that “Origin of life research is a scam.” On Twitter a scientist asked Cronin why. Cronin responded by stating “because no one is really trying to actually answer the question or think[s] it can be done.” 

After Tour publicly quoted Cronin’s assessment of the field, Cronin responded by claiming he was speaking “tongue-in-check.” Later, Cronin stated that “he had too much to drink” before he stated his view. Eventually, he explained his statement, presumably while sober, as follows:

The scam is: if we just make this RNA, we’ve got this…Let’s now make this other molecule. And how many molecules are going to be enough? …go back to Craig Venter, when he… said, “I’ve invented life.” Not quite. He facsimiled the genome from this entity and made it in a lab…But he didn’t make the cell. He had to take an existing cell that has a causal chain going all the way back to LUCA. [The last universal common ancestor, LUCA, is not the first life on Earth. It’s the latest ancestral form to all existing life.]…But it’s remarkable that he could not make a cell from scratch. And even now today, synthetic biologists cannot make a cell from scratch. Because there’s some contingent information embodied outside the genome in the cell….So, there’s lots of layers to the scam.

Tour also described how Cronin did not agree with the questions included in his 60-day challenge. Instead, Cronin believes research should start with a cell and then study how evolution refined the information. Cronin’s comments inspired the three-year challenge for Cronin to demonstrate how his theory could provide any insight into life’s origin, starting wherever he desires. Based on recent critiques of Assembly Theory, the public has little to fear about losing access to Tour’s content.

Hector Zenil Smackdown

Smackdown

Cronin has generated a great deal of hype around Assembly Theory, suggesting that it represents a monumental scientific breakthrough, as illustrated by several headlines:

“Assembly theory puts chemistry centre stage to explain molecular complexity and life’s origins”

“‘Assembly Theory’ unites physics and biology to explain the universe”

“Assembly Theory: Bold New ‘Theory of Everything’ Could Unite Physics and Evolution”

“Assembly Theory: A New Theory of Everything?”

The exaggeration of the importance of Assembly Theory has resulted in concerned responses by such experts as data scientist Hector Zenil who is an associate professor at the School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences at King’s College London. Zenil is a world-class researcher in computational analyses of biological systems, so he is as qualified as anyone to assess the relevance of Assembly Theory to research into life’s origin. Zenil felt so disturbed by the excessive hype that he appeared on Tour’s podcast to expose Cronin’s extreme negligence in so grossly misrepresenting the significance and originality of his theory. 

In the interview, Zenil explained how Assembly Theory is nothing more than an outdated compression algorithm. It not only provides no insight into life’s origin, but it offers nothing of value in any field of science. In his article “The 8 Fallacies of Assembly Theory,” Zenil summarizes his assessment as follows:

We argue that the authors’ marketing and promotional activities, deployed in service of what we think is a fallacious concept and a poorly examined methodology, are unfortunate and scientifically irresponsible.  

Cronin’s lauding of Assembly Theory was the best that the mainstream scientific community had to offer in response to Tour’s grim assessment of the state of origins research. Given the theory’s vacuous nature, the public has a right to hear the truth that the best description of scientists’ understanding of how life could have emerged through natural processes is clueless.  

Yet another Darwinian argument from poor design ages like milk

 

No end in sight for catholicism's Civil war?

 Franciscans in Germany elect openly gay priest as new superior

By CNA Staff

The 300-member Franciscan province of Saint Elisabeth in Germany has elected as its new superior Father Markus Fuhrmann, who a few weeks ago publicly came out as homosexual.

In an interview with MK-Online, the official news website of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, Fuhrmann explained why he went public with his homosexuality.

“If I am gay myself, then I want to show that I can also be part of the Church in this ministry. That's important because it's not supposed to be like that in the Church. Unfortunately, there is too much institutional hypocrisy in our Church,” he said.

In addition, the new Franciscan superior said that he “personally supports the efforts of the Synodal Way, I am in favor of a critical rethinking of celibacy in the priestly way of life and I am in favor of women having access to ordained ministries.”

The Synodal Way is a controversial multi-year process that began in December 2019 and involves bishops and lay people from Germany to address issues such as the exercise of power, sexual morality, the priesthood, and the role of women in the Church, issues on which they have expressed, publicly and on various occasions, positions contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Asked about the fact that his Franciscan brothers knew of his homosexuality at the time of his election, the new German superior said that "it was very good for me to know that this is very positive for the brothers."

He added, “I get a lot of encouragement, and maybe that spark of appreciation can spread to other areas of the Church. I think that's good.”

Fuhrmann was born on August 9, 1971, in Hannover, the capital of Lower Saxony, Germany. He made his simple vows in 1998 and his solemn profession in 2003. He was ordained a priest on May 7, 2005.

In Cologne, part of Saint Elizabeth Province, he ministered to the indigent, and before his election, he served as provincial vicar.

Regarding his future work, the new Franciscan superior in Germany told MK-Online that "a big change is imminent, and I want and must shape it together with the brothers."

The Church's teaching on homosexuality

Catholic teaching on homosexuality is summarized in sections 2357, 2358, and 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Church teaches that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided

As the catechism explains, “Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and this inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”

The catechism states, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Providing further guidance, the catechism says, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

Deuteronomy32:39 demystified.

No Other god/God - Deut. 32:39

Translators have different interpretations here. The usual trinitarian translation has God (YHWH) saying something like this:

“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” - KJV. 

Thus they say that the Word cannot be called 'a god' since God (YHWH) has no god beside Him.

But some trinitarian translators have rendered it this way:

“See ye that I alone am, and there is no other God besides me: I will kill and I will make to live: I will strike, and I will heal, and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” - Douay.

“Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.” - NKJV.

“Don’t you understand? I am the only God; there are no others. ….” - CEV.

“Now, see that I, and only I, am God! There is no other God! ….” - ERV.

“See, I am the only God. There are no others.” - God’s Word.

“See now that I alone am He; there is no God but Me.” - Holman Christian Standard Bible.

In these renderings there is no other God, but that would not rule out the fact that other ‘gods’ may be with Him.

…………………….

Even if you choose the “no god with [or besides] me” interpretation, it is not necessarily a trinitarian ‘proof.’ It has to do with the context of God’s statement here. Here it is in context:

32:15“But Jeshurun [Israel] grew fat and kicked— You are grown fat, thick, and sleek—
Then he forsook God who made him, And scorned the Rock of his salvation. 16 “They made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger.
17 “They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread. 18 “You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who gave you birth. …. 

21 “They have made Me jealous with what is not God; They have provoked Me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation, ….

39 “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.” - NASB.

……………

God (YHWH) here has been consistently speaking of Israel’s love affair with false gods. Obviously none of these are acceptable to God - none of these are “with” Him nor are anything compared to the True God. So it is probable that the verse in question is speaking of false gods only.

This does not mean that God does not call God-appointed persons (including men and angels)‘gods.’

The majority, if not all, recognized scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course) admit this. These include scholars from the early centuries of Christendom until now. Some of those I have found are:

"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1.

And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).” - The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us: 

“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187. 

The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us: 

“The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:

"Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart." - 

And Barnes’ Notes tells us in commenting on John 10:34, 35:

The scripture cannot be broken. See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is, 

‘If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word "god" as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It can not, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah.’ -Barnes' Notes on the New Testament 

Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”: 

“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....” 




Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing, 

“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem’; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” - p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”




The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43: 

Elohim [‘gods’]: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...” 




The trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6: 

“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].” 




Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include: 

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint; 

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984; 

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979; 

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown 

(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36. 

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187. 

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.



(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik)

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen (see DEF study note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF study); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.” 

So, it is clear that Deut. 32:39 cannot be understood to say that there are no persons called 'god' with him for angels were called gods.  

However, none of those 'gods' the Israelites had recently taken up (false gods) were with Him.

Posted by tigger2  

The cell membrane vs. Darwinism's Simple Beginning.

 Secrets of Active Transport Become Visible

David Coppedge

Active transport — the ability to move molecules against a concentration gradient — is one of the key distinguishing features between life and non-life. Passive transport, as with osmosis, we know by experience: a fluid will naturally spread through a semipermeable membrane from a region of high concentration to one of low concentration until the concentration is equalized. That’s why bromine tablets in a spa will spread from the filter out into the water. It’s why wildfire smoke will leak into a room through any cracks in the wall, but not out. It would take Maxwell’s Demon to combat this natural tendency which follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Life cannot operate on the principle of osmosis. A cell with a passive osmotic membrane will die. Cells need to actively bring in or expel substances, often forcing them against a strong concentration gradient. They need to maintain pH homeostasis regardless of conditions outside, often pumping in cations like Na+, K+, Ca2+and Mg2+ or anions like chloride Cl– even when the interior already has a much higher concentration than the exterior. By osmosis, these concentrations would quickly equalize and life would stop. In a real sense, life involves a constant battle against thermodynamic entropy, using energy to combat what natural forces would do.

Unnatural Selection

Biochemists have long known about the existence of specialized membrane channels where active transport takes place, and knew they were highly efficient, but how they operated was long a mystery. Roderick MacKinnon was one scientist who began to figure out the mechanisms of active transport in the 1990s. He won the Nobel Prize in 2003 for his discoveries about “selectivity filters” within ion channels that permit some molecules to pass but not others. Since then, advances in super-resolution microscopy have been revealing details at near-atomic scales about what might be dubbed “unnatural selection” inside these channels.

Membrane channels are often named according to the molecules they transport: anion or cation channels, sodium channels, potassium channels, chloride channels, aquaporins (water channels), and others. Let’s examine the inner workings of one chloride channel, about which scientists’ knowledge has been updated recently. We can share the excitement of discovery about how its “selectivity filter” determines which ions are allowed to pass. As a teaser, consider that the selectivity filter of a potassium channel is much smaller than the width of a potassium ion, yet it can transport 100 million ions per second!

The CFTR Chloride Channel

Last month in PNAS, Levring and Chen announced the “Structural identification of a selectivity filter in CFTR,” a chloride channel responsible for fluid homeostasis in epithelial tissues. It’s called CFTR (Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane conductance Regulator) because of the fatal disease that occurs when genetic defects hinder passage of chloride ions. At the other extreme, cholera makes the channel too indiscriminate, leading to the diarrhea that causes dehydration and death. Kidney disease can also result from defective CFTR channels. This is not a part to mess with!

The shape of CFTR looks like a curved cornucopia with a narrow constriction inside. Notice how the authors identify precise amino acid residues (indicated by a letter and a position number) along the channel path that interact with the chloride ions passing through:

In this study, we identify a chloride-binding site at the extracellular ends of transmembrane helices 1, 6, and 8, where a dehydrated chloride is coordinated by residues G103, R334, F337, T338, and Y914. Alterations to this site, consistent with its function as a selectivity filter, affect ion selectivity, conductance, and open channel block. This selectivity filter is accessible from the cytosol through a large inner vestibule and opens to the extracellular solvent through a narrow portal. The identification of a chloride-binding site at the intra- and extracellular bridging point leads us to propose a complete conductance path that permits dehydrated chloride ions to traverse the lipid bilayer.

Diagrams of the interior show a chloride ion making electrostatic contacts with amino acid residues on its traverse, as if running the gauntlet through armed guards that each ensure it has a valid permit to pass. The structure “encloses a continuous conduit across the membrane for chloride to permeate down its electrochemical gradient.” Each chloride ion is hydrated with a water jacket but must remove its jacket on the way through:

Hydrated chloride enters the inner vestibule from the cytosol through a lateral portal between TMs [transmembrane domains] 4 and 6…. Chloride remains hydrated in the inner vestibule and is stabilized by a positive electrostatic surface potential. The width of the vestibule tapers down and converges at a selectivity filter, where only dehydrated chloride can enter. Dehydrated chloride moves into this selectivity filter, stabilized by interactions with G103, R334, F337, T338, and Y914 and rehydrates upon exit into the epithelial lumen through a narrow lateral exit between TMs 1 and 6.

Precision Authentication

How does the channel filter out other anions? Fluorine (atomic number 9) is smaller than chlorine (atomic number 17), so why doesn’t it slip through? The authors tested the authentication ability of CFTR by means of amino acid substitutions. They confirmed that four residues in the channel perform a qualification test on incoming anions as they dehydrate:

As was previously reported, and consistent with permeating anions having to dehydrate, wild-type CFTR exhibits a lyotropic permeability sequence, with relative permeabilities inversely related to the enthalpy of dehydration … Upon R334A, F337A, T338A, or Y914F substitution, the relative anion permeabilities were all altered, albeit to different degrees, consistent with previous work.

Figure 5 in the paper shows a chloride ion being inspected by four amino acid residue “cops” on four sides. A rogue molecule is not going to pass! The precision of this filter is astonishing. How much mutation could the system tolerate without breakdown? And how many accidents built this filter by chance in the first place? Details in the following quote will not be on the quiz, but to get a feel for the complexity involved, look at how many residues participate in authenticating chloride ions as they run the gauntlet:

Previous mutational work has identified a plethora of residues, many are arginine and lysine, that influence CFTR ion selectivity and/or conductance. Mapping these residues onto the CFTR structure indicates that basic residues, including K95, R104, R117, K190, R248, R303, K335, R352, K370, K1041, and R1048… are positioned along the cytosolic and extracellular vestibules, with their side chains exposed to solvent. Different from the residues that directly coordinate chloride [the selectivity filter], the function of these arginine and lysine residues is to stabilize the partially hydrated anions through electrostatic interactions and to discriminate against cations.The side chains of Q98 and S341 also face the cytosolic vestibule to form anion–dipole interactions with chloride and contribute to ion selectivity. R334, positioned at the extracellular mouth of the pore, plays a dual role in forming the selectivity filter and attracting anions into the pore through electrostatic interactions. Many other functionally important residues, including P99, L102, I106, Y109, I336, S1118, and T1134…, do not directly interact with chloride. Instead, they form a second coordination sphere of [the selectivity filter] that likely contributes to structuring [selectivity filter] residues with the appropriate geometry to coordinate chloride.

Airport Analogy

Think of these other “important residues” as part of the “coordination sphere” at an airport. The entire structure serves the purpose of narrowing down the flow of passengers to the “selectivity filter” of X-ray machines that inspect passengers and their baggage. The entire superstructure is necessary and must have been planned with the appropriate geometry and personnel to guide the passengers to the inspection site, even though the X-ray machine is as narrow as a human.

TSA workers at airports could never boast of this much quality control in their authentication protocols. And human workers have eyes and minds to think about what they are doing! The CFTR channel operates automatically in the dark, by the delicate “touch” of electrostatic interactions within a precisely structured narrow passageway within the coordination sphere. One source says that CFTR conducts millions of chloride ions per second! The TSA could learn something about efficiency here, as many of us airline passengers could attest.

Speaking of touch, my next article will discuss some other channels that respond when contacted — the so-called mechanosensitive channels.

Useless Darwinese

Did CFTR evolve? Because the CFTR channel has some similarities to other chloride channels like CLC, the authors glibly surmise that it “uniquely evolved from a family of active transporters,” assuming that “unrelated ion channels have evolved to select and conduct chloride using common chemical strategies.” Such a narrative gloss is not only useless, it makes no sense. A strategy implies foresight: seeing a need and designing a solution. While some frequent flyers might be tempted to smirk that TSA strategies seem mindless and unguided, elaborate structures like CFTR channels that operate extremely efficiently and accurately with low tolerance for alteration look engineered. They had to work from the start. Without those precisely placed amino acid residues already present at the right spot within a larger coordination sphere, there would be no authentication, and active transport would stop. The alternative is disease and death. Our uniform experience confirms that elaborate, efficient strategies that work — employing irreducibly complex structures with multiple coordinating parts supporting the function — are always products of intelligent design.