Against litigious V

 Litigious:The claim that "prototokos" always makes Christ a part of the creation is unfounded. The term prototokos in Colossians 1:15 does not imply that Christ is a created being. Instead, the context and the biblical use of the term emphasize rank, preeminence, and authority, not chronological order or membership within the group.

Myself:I'm afraid until you produce an example of protokos being outside of his group you point remains unproven so get to work on that.

Litigious:ous:The term prototokos is used in the Septuagint to convey primacy or supremacy, not just birth order. For example:

• Psalm 89:27 refers to King David: "I will make him the firstborn (prototokos), the highest of the kings of the earth." David was not the first king, nor was he the eldest in his family. Instead, prototokos here means preeminence and highest rank.

• Exodus 4:22: God calls Israel His "firstborn son." This designation refers to Israel's unique relationship and status, not chronological order.

Similarly, in Colossians 1:15, Christ is called "the firstborn of all creation" to signify His preeminence over creation, as demonstrated in the immediate context (v. 16), where it is stated that "all things were created through Him and for Him."

Myself I am afraid that it does not matter whether first or foremost as I stated before nincs the prototokos is ALWAYS part of the group or of the same kind as his forebearer until you produce an example to the contrary you point fails.

The assertion that prototokos "always makes Christ a member of the set" leads to logical inconsistencies. If this reasoning were applied universally:

•litigious: In Psalm 89:27, David would be part of the "kings of the earth" but also their creator, which is nonsensical.

What nonsense are you talking? Of course David was one of earth's kings why would he need to be their creator?

Litigious• In Exodus 4:22, Israel would be part of a "set" of other sons of God, contradicting the unique covenant relationship.

All nations are children of JEHOVAH Descendents of the prophet Noah no contradiction there.

Litigious:• Similarly, Colossians 1:15 would make Christ both a part of creation and the creator of "all things" (v. 16), which is a contradiction. The immediate context of v. 16 excludes this interpretation because Christ is described as the one through whom all creation exists.

Myself :the propositions en and dia are never used of JEHOVAH'S Role in creation these preposition show that that Jesus is JEHOVAH'S Instrument and not JEHOVAH. 

Litihious:The claim that "prototokos" makes Jesus part of creation misunderstands the Greek construction. The phrase "firstborn of all creation" (prototokos pases ktiseos) does not indicate that Christ is part of creation but rather that He is over creation. The genitive case (pases ktiseos) is most appropriately understood as a genitive of subordination, meaning that Christ is sovereign over creation, not part of it. This usage aligns with biblical examples:

Myself:The firstborn is always part of the group.

•litigious Colossians 1:18: "Firstborn from the dead" does not mean Christ is part of death but that He is supreme over it.

Myself Nobody rules the dead he is the first to be resurrected to unending life.

The dead are dead and have no ruler

•litigious: Revelation 1:5: "Firstborn of the dead" emphasizes Christ’s preeminence over death, as the first to rise in glorified form and never die again.

Myself 1Corinthians ch.15:20NIV"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."

That is what his being first born from the dead means.

1Corinthians ch.7:1NIV"Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives?"

No one rules the dead.

Litigious:The text claims that the preposition dia indicates subordination and that Christ is merely a "secondary agent" in creation. This is a misunderstanding of Greek grammar and theology. The preposition dia often denotes the means or instrument by which something is accomplished but does not imply inferiority or subordination. For instance:

In JEHOVAH'S Case the one dia who he accomplishes anything is ALWAYS Subordinate because he ALONE is the one ex whom ALL things are 1Corinthians ch.8:6 NKJV"yet for us there is one God, the Father, of (ex) whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."

JEHOVAH is the ONE God EX whom all the information an energy in the creation is that is why the propositions "en" and "dia" are never used of his role in creation.

•litigious John 1:3: "All things were made through (dia) Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made."

Myself:"Made" referring to origin.

Litigious• Romans 11:36: "For from Him and through (dia) Him and to Him are all things.

The word "exists" here does NOT refer to origin but brother Paul explains it here at acts ch.17:28NKJV"for in(en) Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’"

So these are two different context when it comes to origin EN AND DIA ARE Never used of JEHOVAH But JEHOVAH's Creatures sustain, strengthen themselves through JEHOVAH In that case the initiative would be with the creature.

James ch.4:8

Litigious:in both cases, dia emphasizes the active and integral role of Christ in creation. If dia implied subordination, then God the Father Himself would be considered subordinate in Romans 11:36, which uses the same preposition.

Actually both cases the the subject is instrumental JEHOVAH sustains us but we still have to show initiative ,we have work to get money to feed and clothe ourselves we  have to use what JEHOVAH Has provided wisely.

On the other hand it would be ridiculous to suggest that JEHOVAH needs to be sustained by anyone,

Jesus nakes his dependence on JEHOVAH Clear. John ch.5:19 NIV"Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do NOTHING by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

LITIGIOUS: THE text misrepresents the relationship between the Father and the Son by asserting that Christ’s creative role is secondary. The New Testament consistently presents the Son as fully divine and equal to the Father (cf. John 1:1, John 10:30, Philippians 2:6). As Athanasius argued against Arius, the creative act belongs to God alone. If Christ participates in creation, He must be truly God.

No every single time JEHOVAH acts through someone in the Bible he is the sustaining agent never the other way around. He is never strengthened by anyone, Christ is strengthened by JEHOVAH he said so.

John ch.5:19

Among the examples of dia being used to denote instrumentality by thayers lexicon we have John ch.1:3,1Corinthians ch.8:6,Colossians ch.1:16, Hebrews ch.1:2.

https://biblehub.com/thayers/1223.htm

Against Litigious IV

Litigious: The claim that "firstborn" implies membership in creation is not supported by the grammar or broader scriptural context. If Paul intended to communicate that Christ is a part of creation, he could have used a term like "πρωτόκτιστος" (protoktistos, "first-created"), a term never used in the New Testament. Early Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Basil, explicitly noted this distinction to refute Arian interpretations. The genitive construction in Colossians 1:15 functions relationally, not partitively. Christ is "firstborn" over creation, emphasizing His authority and preeminence, much like a firstborn son would have authority in a family context.

Myself:Prototokos would satisfy Paul's needs because no one has provided me with a single exception to protokos being Part of the group of which he is protokos or of a different kind to his forebearer not one.

Jesus having authority over the group of which he is firstborn and being of the same kind as his siblings are not mutually exclusive, thayers clearly makes prototokos colossians ch.1:15 a partitive genitive the fact that the creation occurs "dia" him proves conclusively that he is not JEHOVAH.

litigious:The assertion that Christ cannot be divine because Jehovah is called "the Most High" (Luke 1:32) misunderstands the Trinitarian doctrine: The title "Most High" refers to God’s supremacy over all creation, not an exclusion of the Son or Spirit from the Godhead. In John 1:1, the Word is explicitly called God ("theos"), co-eternal with the Father. Psalm 83:18 affirms that Jehovah is supreme, but this does not exclude Christ’s divinity. Instead, the New Testament reveals Christ as sharing in Jehovah’s divine identity, as seen in Philippians 2:9-11, where every knee bows to Jesus and every tongue confesses Him as Lord (kyrios), the Greek equivalent of Yahweh.

Myself:his FATHER is supreme according to the inspired scriptures therefore his Father Alone is the Most High God ,this falsifies utterly the claim that their are two others who are coequal to his God and Father,

Litigious:Isaiah 44:24 states that Jehovah created "alone." However, this does not exclude Christ’s role, as the New Testament reveals the plurality within the Godhead. Jehovah is one God, and Christ, as the Word, is His eternal agent in creation. The New Testament consistently attributes creation to Christ (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2), affirming His equality with the Father in essence and work.

Myself:Again no creation can be considered a suppliment to JEHOVAH because ALL of the energy and information in said creation came out of his form so JEHOVAH'S Using a prior creation to produce a later one is no violation of isaiah ch.44:24 his receiving aid from an uncreated being would definitely be a violation of that scripture. 

LitihiousInconclusion, the arguments presented fail to undermine the clear biblical testimony of Christ’s divinity, preeminence, and role as Creator. The use of "πρωτότοκος" in Colossians 1:15 signifies His supremacy over creation, not His inclusion within it. The Trinitarian understanding harmonizes the full scriptural witness, affirming Christ as fully divine, co-eternal with the Father, and distinct in personhood.

It depends on what one means by divinity,Christ is definitely superhuman as are the holy angels the angels are called gods Psalm ch.8:5,

But the Bible is strikingly clear about the utter supremacy of the God and Father of Jesus.

Matthew ch.24:36KJV"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. "

The incarnation fudge does not work here because the unincarnated spirit is not even mentioned the verse is quite clear the FATHER ALONE is supreme and after all that is the meaning of the word supremacy and equality are mutually exclusive. 

Now among the examples of " dia" being used in the sense of instrumentality by an author in thayers lexicon we have John ch 1:3 ,1Corinthians 8:6,colossians ch 1:16, Hebrews ch.1:2 .

https://biblehub.com/thayers/1223.htm

Against Litigious III

Litigious: The claim that "πρωτότοκος" (prototokos, "firstborn") necessarily implies that Christ is part of creation conflates the term's use as denoting rank or preeminence with its use as a literal birth order.

Myself:it really does not matter whether rank or temporal order the protokos is without exception always part of the group of which he is prototokos there is not one single exception in all of scripture.

 Litigious: In Colossians 1:15, Paul writes, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." The phrase "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" does not use a partitive genitive (indicating membership within the group). Instead, the context clarifies that Christ is preeminent over all creation, not a member of creation. Support from context: Verse 16 immediately explains why Christ is called "firstborn": "For by Him all things were created." If Christ created "all things," He cannot logically be part of the created order. The "all things" includes "things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible," emphasizing Christ’s role as Creator, not created

 Myself:Thayers begs to differ prototokos at colossians ch.1:15 is a partitive genitive according to thayers please check for yourself,but it would be worse if it were a possessive genitive because that would definitely make him the offspring of the creation and make his creative status more rather than less certain

And again the propositions "en" and "dia" are NEVER used of JEHOVAH NEVER regarding his role in the creation,those propositions prove that he us not JEHOVAH But JEHOVAH'S Instrument.

Litigious:You cite Thayer's explanation of "πρωτότοκος" as partitive in certain contexts, such as "firstborn of the flock" (Genesis 4:4) or "firstborn of your sons" (Exodus 22:29). However, these examples involve biological or literal relationships. In Colossians 1:15, Paul is using "firstborn" metaphorically to signify rank and authority, consistent with its use in Psalm 89:27: "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." Here, "firstborn" signifies preeminence, not literal birth.

Myself:It does not Matter no example is available in scripture where the prototokos whether use in the sense of the first or in the sense of the foremost is of a kind other than the one possessing him or his implied siblings

Litigious:The argument that Christ’s title as "monogenes" (only-begotten) suggests He is part of creation misunderstands the theological use of the term: In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham’s "only-begotten" (monogenes), even though Abraham had another son, Ishmael. The term "monogenes" here emphasizes Isaac’s unique role as the son of promise, not that he is the only son in a literal sense. Similarly, Christ’s designation as "monogenes" in John 1:14 and 1:18 highlights His unique relationship to the Father as the eternal Word, not that He was created. The temporal begetting in Acts 13:33, where the resurrection of Christ is referenced with Psalm 2:7 ("You are my Son; today I have begotten you"), pertains to Christ’s glorification, not His ontological origin. This event is distinct from His eternal generation as the Son of God.

Myself : birth language when used of JEHOVAH Refers to creation,Psalm ch.90:2 for example, the resurrection is a creative act that is why the resurrected are called children of God.

Luke ch.20:36NASB"for they cannot even die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being [u]sons of the resurrection. "

Isaac was literally abraham's Son but he was his only Son through the free woman he is the only son he begot in that matter, so the way he was begot was unique not the fact that he begot.

So to Christ the way he was created was unique not the fact that like EVERY Other son he of JEHOVAH He was created.

Christ himself admitted that JEHOVAH Caused him to live.

John ch.6:57NASB"Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, the one who eats Me, he also will live because of Me"

Litigious:The argument that Jehovah creates through preceding creations is flawed when applied to Christ: In Genesis 6:7, Jehovah speaks of "creating" humans and animals. While these beings emerged through natural processes after their kinds, Jehovah is still credited as Creator because He initiated these processes. However, this analogy fails to account for Christ’s unique role as Creator. Colossians 1:16 states that "all things were created through Him and for Him." This does not suggest that Christ was a secondary agent but rather emphasizes His direct involvement as Creator, as also affirmed in John 1:3: "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made."

I never ever asserted that Christ was created through a prior creation in fact I've always stated the reverse that he us the only creation that was not created through a prior creation, again the fact that creation is accomplished "dia" or "en" him proves conclusively that he us not JEHOVAH But JEHOVAH'S Instrument these propositions are never ever used of JEHOVAH'S Role in creation not even one time. The reason why JEHOVAH Can take full credit for what he accomplishes dia his first creation is the same as why he can take full credit for what he accomplishes through any other creation. All the power sustaining that first creation and being transmitted through that first creation is from him.

Among the examples of dia being used to denote instrumentality by thayers lexicon we have John ch.1:3 ,1Corinthians ch.8:6,Hebrews ch.1:2,colossians ch.1:16

https://biblehub.com/thayers/1223.htm

Against Litigious II

 Litigious:The phrase apo archē (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς) is context-dependent. While it often refers to a temporal starting point, it can also emphasize a state of existence or origin. For example:

• 1 John 1:1: "That which was from the beginning (apo archē), which we have heard..." Contextually, this refers to the eternal existence of the Logos (Christ), consistent with John 1:1 ("In the beginning was the Word").

Myself:that is tremendously circular even by trinitarian standards what in the "context " mandates a departure from the default.

Litigious:• John 8:44: Jesus says the devil "has been a murderer from the beginning (apo archē)," referring to the devil's enduring nature rather than a specific moment in time.

Myself there was a definite moment when he became the slanderer.

Ezekiel ch.28:15NIV"You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you."

Litigious:Thus, apo archē in 1 John 1:1 underscores Christ’s eternal existence, not a created origin.

Myself:Argument by assertion and circular logic fallacy.

Litigious:Reputable translations (e.g., NASB, ESV, NIV) are based on rigorous textual analysis and scholarly consensus. Even non-Trinitarian scholars often reject the claim that Proverbs 8 or Colossians 1 teaches Christ's creation. The insertion of "other" in the New World Translation (e.g., Colossians 1:16-17) reflects theological bias, as the word "other" does not appear in the Greek text.

Myself:Why is it that you people are ALWAYS the first, as in every single time ,to mention the NWT You people far more obsessed with the NWT than I,I said and I say again that The word "all" is ROUTINELY used with sensible exceptions throughout the scriptures as at Genesis ch.3:20 where Eve is called the mother of ALL with sensible exceptions, the use of the prepositions "en" and "dia" which are NEVER EVER used of JEHOVAH'S Role in creation indicate the Logos is Not the source of the energy and information manifest in creation.

Litigious:Bruce Metzger, a renowned textual critic, highlights how the Watchtower Society’s translation of Colossians 1:16-17 distorts the text to align with Arian theology, an approach inconsistent with sound exegesis.

Myself:I promise to never use the NWT In our discussion O.K

Litigious:In conclusion, the broader biblical and linguistic evidence overwhelmingly supports the eternal pre-existence of Christ as the Logos and Wisdom of God. Proverbs 8 poetically describes Wisdom's role in creation without implying ontological creation. Colossians 1:15-17 and Revelation 3:14 affirm Christ's supremacy and role as Creator, not a created being. Your interpretation relies on selective readings, misunderstandings of language, and theological presuppositions inconsistent with the full biblical witness.

Myself: all I see more extremely circular logic and argument by assertion. The assertion that your position is true is evidence of nothing especially if you are arguing for a departure from the mutually agreed upon default.

Among the examples of dia being used to denote instrumentality by thayers lexicon we have John ch.1:3 ,1Corinthians ch.8:6,Hebrews ch.1:2,colossians ch.1:16

https://biblehub.com/thayers/1223.htm

Against litigious.

Litigious:he Hebrew word qanah is highly flexible and context-dependent. While qanah can mean "create" or "acquire," its usage in Proverbs 8:22 more likely conveys the idea of "possessed" or "acquired," as seen in translations like the ESV, NASB, and KJV. This aligns with the understanding of Wisdom as an eternal, inherent attribute of God, not a created being.

Myself:JEHOVAH innate Wisdom has no beginning and of course is not an acquistion the only way so no Proverbs ch.8:22 cannot be referring to anything eternal or innate. The logic of the context suggest a discrete expression of that wisdom such as would be an acquisition and would be the first of JEHOVAH'S Work

Litigious:• Genesis 4:1: qanah is used to mean "acquired" or "gotten," not necessarily "created." Eve says, "I have acquired [qanah] a man from the LORD," which clearly refers to receiving Cain, not "creating" him in an ultimate sense.

Myself:Cain was not a perpetual possession but was acquired at a discrete point in time and did not exist eternally. Her decision was necessary though not sufficient in bringing about the existence of cain

Litigious• Deuteronomy 32:6: qanah describes God's relationship with Israel as their "Father" or "Owner," indicating covenantal possession, not literal creation.

Myself:He was the founder of a nation that did not previously exists and likely would never had existed if he had not intervened so no cana does not mean innate or perpetual possession here either, but the bringing forth of that which did not previously exists.

Litigious:Even ancient Jewish sources, such as the Targum and Philo of Alexandria, understood Wisdom in Proverbs 8 as eternal and intrinsic to God. Philo describes Wisdom as God's "first-born" (prōtotokos), but not in a created sense—it is an eternal manifestation of God's nature.

Myself:Again cana according to your own examples does not allude to any innate or perpetual possession but the creation or acquisition of what was not previously owned or existing.

Litigious:The verb chuwl (חול) does not inherently mean "created" in the ontological sense. Instead, it often refers to "originating" or "manifesting." For example:

• Psalm 90:2: "Before the mountains were brought forth (yalad), or ever you had formed the earth and the world..." This does not mean the mountains were literally birthed but figuratively describes God's creative activity

Myself:That is my point, when birth language is used of JEHOVAH It always means create literally never birthed literally,

Litigious:• Micah 5:2: The Messiah’s "goings forth" (motsa'ot) are described as "from eternity" (miqedem). Similarly, Proverbs 8:24-25 speaks of Wisdom’s manifestation in creation without implying its ontological beginning.

Myself:According to strong's miqedem can and indeed usually means from old not necessarily from eternity. Olam also basically means hidden time and need not imply eternity and as this particular acquisition is spoken of as having a beginning. Eternity does not fit the context.

Wisdom is described poetically as "brought forth" to illustrate its active role in creation, not its origin. The broader context of Proverbs 8 portrays Wisdom as God's eternal attribute, foundational to all creation, aligning with John's depiction of the Logos (John 1:1). 

Myself: or The fact that the creation was the beginning of the manifestation of JEHOVAH'S Wisdom which seems to make more sense, no one can read JEHOVAH'S Mind the only way that his Wisdom can be known is by observing expressions of it.

 see Romans ch.1:20

Litigious:The Greek word archē (ἀρχή) has multiple meanings, including "beginning," "ruler," "origin," or "source." Its precise meaning is determined by context. In Revelation 3:14, the phrase hē archē tēs ktiseōs is better translated as "the source [or origin] of creation," not "the first created being."

Myself:Well you assert that he is the source you have not demonstrated that note that he is the arche of THE GOD'S creation why is the expression "the God" in the third person if he is the God who is the source of the creation. And given John's use of arche at 1John ch.1:1 and throughout the book of revelation . And the fact That he used archon at revelation ch.1:5 when he wanted to put Christ status as ruler to the fore. A mere assertion is not sufficient to overturn the king James verdion [good trinitarians like yourself] on this one

Litihious:• Colossians 1:16-17: Paul emphasizes that "all things" (πᾶντα) were created through Christ, and Christ existed "before all things" (pro pantōn), clearly excluding Him from the category of created beings.

Myself :The fact that all things were created "dia" christ indicates that he is not the source of the power and wisdom in the creation, you will note that propositions like "en" and "dia" are NEVER used of JEHOVAH'S Role in the creation so while Christ is exempt from the rest of the creation that took place THROUGH Him  he is not exempt from  JEHOVAH'S Creation.

The word all is routinely used in scripture with sensible exceptions.

Example Genesis ch.3:20NKJV"And Adam called his wife’s name Eve,[g] because she was the mother of ALL living." This does not exclude Eve or Adam from being numbered among the living.

Litigious:• John 1:1-3: The Logos (Jesus) is described as existing "in the beginning" (en archē), not as having a beginning, and "all things" were made through Him. If all things were made through Him, He cannot be part of the "all things" created.

Myself:Again the Bible speaks of the creation as occurring "dia" JEHOVAH Dia suggest an intermediary role not a source or supreme authority.

John ch.1:17NKJV"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

Of course Moses was not the source of the law but the channel through which the law was transmitted.

1John ch.1:1 NKJV"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—"

"Apo arkhe definitely means from a definite beginning without exception not so much as one.

Litigious:Thus, Revelation 3:14 describes Christ as the source or origin of creation, consistent with His divine role as Creator, not a created being.

Myself:You are repeating yourself we dealt with this unsubstantiated assertion already he is arkhe of someone else's creation the expression the God is in the third person not the first ,John consistently uses arkhe for beginning in Revelation and archon for prince.

Litigious:While Paul identifies Christ as the "Wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24), this is metaphorical, not ontological. The personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 poetically describes an attribute of God, not a separate created entity.

Myself:Of course it's metaphorical he is manifestation of JEHOVAH'S Wisdom and power.

Especially in terms of JEHOVAH'S Resurrection of him a manifestation of both JEHOVAH'S Power and wisdom.

JEHOVAH of course is the immortal God and thus was never resurrected from the dead.

Roman's ch.1:22,23NIV"lthough they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

Note our brother Paul states that it is foolish to even assert that JEHOVAH Outwardly resembles a mortal man let alone could ever have the nature of one JEHOVAH Cannot die and thus cannot be resurrected.

Litigious:• Colossians 1:15-17: Christ is the "image of the invisible God, the firstborn (prōtotokos) of all creation." The term prōtotokos does not mean "first created" (prōtoktistos). Instead, it signifies preeminence and supremacy over creation, as demonstrated in Psalm 89:27, where David is called God's "firstborn," though he was not literally the firstborn son of Jesse.

Myself:You know who else is the icon of JEHOVAH

1Corinthians ch.11:7NKJV"For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."

And if David is called firstborn of JEHOVAH why mention Jesse as if he is JEHOVAH, David was indeed the first in the line of kings leading to the Messiah, even Jesus is called Son of David. Son of God was a title held by the messianic kings of Israel 2Samuel ch.7:14ASV"I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men;"

So not just David but his royal lineage up to shiloh was meant. 

Litigious:Christ's role as Creator in Colossians 1 and John 1 underscores His divine nature. The personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 anticipates the New Testament's fuller revelation of Christ as the eternal Logos. 

Myself:The propositions "en" and "dia" which are NEVER EVER used of JEHOVAH regarding his role in the creation indicates that Christ is JEHOVAH'S Created instrument just as the use of the preposition "dia" with regard to Moses transmission of the law indicates that he was JEHOVAH'S Instrument and not the source of the law.

1Corinthians ch.8:6ASV"yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."

Among the examples of dia being used to denote instrumentality by thayers lexicon we have John ch.1:3 ,1Corinthians ch.8:6,Hebrews ch.1:2,colossians ch.1:16

https://biblehub.com/thayers/1223.htm

Am I ready for dedication ?

 I pass on what I received, JEHOVAH is in no man's debt,all are indebted to him with a debt that can never be repaid,

Acts ch.17:24,25NIV"“The God(i.e the Lord JEHOVAH) who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 

He is certainly not hard up for worship he is worshiped by gods. 

Revelation ch.4:9-11NIV"9Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, 10the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:

11“You are worthy, our Lord and God,

to receive glory and honor and power,

for you created all things,

and by your will they were created

and have their being.”"

Being accepted by JEHOVAH into his holy service is a privilege,an honor not an entitlement.

Only when one reaches that realisation in one's heart ( not head) is one ready to approach our Great God JEHOVAH in prayer seeking one's own personal covenant with him through his loyal priest Jesus Christ.

More OoL science vs. Design denial.

 The Cell Division Challenge to Eukaryogenesis — And to Evolution

Jonathan McLatchie

In a previous Article, I discussed the irreducible complexity of the eukaryotic cell division machinery. What makes the origins of the eukaryotic cell cycle particularly resistant to evolutionary explanations is that a wide gulf exists between the mechanism of cell division by eukaryotes and that employed by prokaryotic cells — both in terms of the protein components involved, as well as the underlying logic. There is essentially nothing in common between the two systems. As I noted in my paper,

The invagination of the bacterial cell inner membrane is mediated by FtsZ and the other proteins that together comprise the divisome. In eukaryotic cells, by contrast, a contractile ring forms from actin filaments and myosin motor proteins, which pinches the cell’s membrane to form two daughter cells. The mechanisms of segregating DNA in prokaryotes are also significantly different from the manner of segregating genetic material in eukaryotes. During eukaryotic mitosis…the cell’s replicated DNA condenses into distinct chromosomes. These chromosomes are then equally divided and segregated into two daughter cells through a process guided by the spindle apparatus, ensuring each cell receives a complete and identical set of genetic information. The underlying apparatus of these processes, therefore, are quite distinct between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

Table 1 in the paper (pages 9-10) highlights important differences in the mode of cell division between these two systems.

Bacterial Cell Division Is Irreducibly Complex

For a survey of the mechanisms involved in bacterial cell division, I refer readers to two articles I previously published at Evolution News — Here and Here. Various features of the prokaryotic cell division machinery, much like eukaryotic cell division, exhibit irreducible complexity. For example, in gram-negative organisms, a minimum of ten proteins (FtsA, B, I, K, L, N, Q, W, Z and ZipA) are indispensable for successful division, and therefore have been suggested as potential targets of antibiotic drugs.1,2,3 For economy of space, I refer readers to my previous articles on this for a more detailed discussion of the irreducible complexity of the prokaryotic cell division machinery.

LECA Possessed Modern-Like Cell Cycle Complexity

Phylostratigraphic analysis has revealed that most of the components found in the modern eukaryotic cell cycle were already present in the last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA). For example, one study revealed that a minimum of 24 of 37 known subunits, co-activators and direct / indirect substrates of the APC/C were present in LECA.4 A similar analysis was carried out on the components of the mitotic checkpoint and their associated functional domains and motifs. They concluded that “most checkpoint components are ancient and were likely present in the last eukaryotic common ancestor.”5 Another study likewise confirmed that the dynactin complex (the activator of cytoplasmic dynein, which is crucial for mitosis) is also a very ancient complex and likely all of its subunits were found in LECA.6 A yet further study, examining ninety different eukaryotic lineages, inferred the evolutionary histories of the proteins involved in the kinetochore network using a method known as Dollo parsimony (which assumes no more than one invention of a protein and infers subsequent losses of that protein based on maximum parsimony).7 They determined that 49 out of 70 proteins were found in LECA.

Given that LECA appears to have possessed most of the cell cycle components, it raises the question of where those components arose from — particularly since there exists such a radical disparity between the mechanisms of cell division in eukaryotes and prokaryotes. As stated previously, there is virtually nothing in common — either in terms of the protein components or underlying logic.

The Eukaryotic Cell Cycle Components Lack Prokaryotic Homologues

In my recent Paper , I sought to determine, using BLAST and other bioinformatics techniques, the extent to which one can identify remote homologues of the eukaryotic cell cycle components among prokaryotes8,9 — in particular, among the Asgard archaea, an archaeal superphylum believed to represent the closest living relatives to eukaryotes.10The result was that, for the vast majority of eukaryotic cell cycle components, no homologues could be identified among prokaryotes, including among the Asgard archaea. The figure below (figure 2 from my paper) shows my findings for those components associated with the anaphase promoting complex / cyclosome (APC/C) and its direct/indirect targets, the mitotic checkpoint, and the kinetochore network (all of which have been inferred, through phylostratigraphic analysis, to have been present in LECA).

As shown in the figure, a vast majority of the eukaryotic cell cycle proteins lack homologues. In those cases where homology could be identified, in most instances only part of the protein exhibited homology (e.g. the kinase domain of Aurora kinase is obviously homologous to other kinases).

The Challenge to Evolution

As I note in my paper, 

These results support the hypothesis that the components involved in eukaryotic cell division are substantially de novo eukaryotic innovations that arose sometime after the split with the archaeal lineages. There seems to be no prima facie evidence that the highly distinct cell replication machinery of these two systems are related through descent with modification. The fact that the majority of the components have also been inferred from phylostratigraphic analysis to have been present in LECA (estimated to have lived 1.1 to 2.3 billion years ago) suggests that all eukaryotic proteins associated with cell division came to exist sometime after the eukaryotic split with the archaea but before LECA.11

Moreover

In the window of time available for the origin of eukaryotic cell division control, multiple proteins not only need to evolve into their specifically crafted structures for the purpose of mediating the cell cycle, but they would need to replace the bacterial cell division proteins as well as be assembled into a highly coordinated system — all while maintaining the integrity of the cell division and DNA segregation process.12

Such a transition seems to be particularly implausible given the irreducible complexity of both prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems. Not only would each of the prokaryotic cell division components need to be replaced, but most of the proteins with which they are replaced would need to arise de novo. Even those few proteins that do have homologues in prokaryotes would need to be repurposed, since they serve quite different tasks between the two systems. For example, in prokaryotes, FtsZ (a homologue of Tubulin) assembles to form the contractile ring that facilitates the bifurcation of the parent cell into two daughter cells, whereas its eukaryotic homologue Tubulin (the subunit of microtubules) plays an important role in chromosome segregation during mitosis.

A Cause with Foresight

If undirected processes are incapable of producing the complex machinery associated with mitotic division, is there any other cause that can? As I explain in my paper,

The transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is inextricably associated with the creation of new information in the form of genes necessary to code for the expression of the numerous associated proteins (most of which are absent in prokaryotes). Furthermore, the functions of those proteins must be tightly regulated and controlled through various checkpoint mechanisms. To make matters worse for the standard processes of evolutionary biology, the transition must occur through many small and steady incremental steps, each yielding some functional advantage while also retaining the integrity of the cell division apparatus. Yet, as we have seen, many of the necessary processes are irreducibly complex, meaning that many mutually co-dependent changes are needed before a fitness advantage could be realized.

We know from experience that intelligent agents are capable of rapidly introducing new information into a system in order to radically change its fundamental components into a new set of integrated parts that perform some function. Thus, in every other realm of experience, we would routinely attribute such engineered systems to intelligent agency — a cause that possesses foresight and which can plan for the future, visualize complex endpoints and consciously bring together everything needed to actualize a complex endpoint.

The radical disparity that exists between the eukaryotic and prokaryotic cell division machinery is extremely surprising given the standard evolutionary view of gradual, incremental evolution. On the other hand, it is far less surprising given a hypothesis of design. This data thus tends to confirm a teleological framework over an evolutionary one.

Notes

den Blaauwen T, Andreu JM, Monasterio O. (2014) Bacterial cell division proteins as antibiotic targets. Bioorg Chem. 55: 27-38.

Lock RL and Harry EJ. (2008) Cell-division inhibitors: new insights for future antibiotics. Nat Rev Drug Discov.7(4): 324-38.

den Blaauwen T, Andreu JM, Monasterio O. (2014) Bacterial cell division proteins as antibiotic targets. Bioorg Chem. 55:27-38.

Eme L., Trilles A., Moreira D. and Brochier-Armanet C. (2011). The phylogenomic analysis of the anaphase promoting complex and its targets points to complex and modern-like control of the cell cycle in the last common ancestor of eukaryotes. BMC Evolutionary Biology 11: 265. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-11-265

Vleugel M, Hoogendoom E, Snel B, Kops GJPL (2012). Evolution and Function of the Mitotic Checkpoint. Developmental Cell 23: 239-250. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2012.06.013

Hammesfahr B, Kollmar M (2012). Evolution of the eukaryotic dynactin complex, the activator of cytoplasmic dynein. BMC Evolutionary Biology 12: 95. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-12-95

van Hoof JJE, Tromer E, van Wijk LM, Snel B, Kops GJPL (2017) Evolutionary dynamics of the kinetochore network in eukaryotes as revealed by comparative genomics. EMBO Reports 18(8): 1265-1472. doi:10.15252/embr.201744102

McLatchie J (2024) Phylogenetic Challenges to the Evolutionary Origin of the Eukaryotic Cell Cycle. BIO-Complexity 2024 (4):1–19 doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2024.4.

Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka K, Caceres EF, Saw JH, Bäckström D, Juzokaite L., et. al(2017) Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity. Nature 541(7637): 353-358. doi:10.1038/nature21031

Spang A, Saw JH, Jørgensen SL, Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka K, Martijn J, et. al(2015). Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Nature 521(7551): 173- 179. doi:10.1038/nature14447

McLatchie J (2024) Phylogenetic Challenges to the Evolutionary Origin of the Eukaryotic Cell Cycle. BIO-Complexity 2024 (4):1–19 doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2024.4.

Ibid.

Finally physicists can give shroedinger a straight answer?

 

Theism:the matrix of science?

 Sorry, Dr. Coyne: There Is No Religion-Science Conflict

Robert Schedinger

A new unpublished paper titled “Science and Religious Dogma” by Matías Cabello has caught the attention of Jerry Coyne, who blogged about it at Why Evolution Is True. Coyne has questions about the paper’s methodology, but he nevertheless likes the paper because it supports the religion and science conflict thesis with data. Cabello’s historical analysis seems to show that church dogma stifled science, but being freed from its influence opened up new ways of thinking, allowing science to flourish,

Coyne uses his commentary on Cabello’s paper to push his own dedication to the conflict thesis. In fact, he charges scholars like Ronald Numbers and Michael Ruse, who have adopted the no conflict hypothesis, with holding a “’woke’ point of view: it goes along with the virtue-flaunting idea that you can have your Jesus and Darwin too.” For Coyne, religion and science have always been and always will be in conflict. Further, he thinks they should be in conflict — religion and science are completely incompatible in Coyne’s worldview. Perhaps he could spend more time studying history. 

Epicycles and Equants

Not nearly enough attention has been paid to Copernicus’ justification for proposing his heliocentric model of the universe. Copernicus possessed no empirical data leading to the overthrow of the centuries-old Ptolemaic system. The latter still worked well for practical purposes. But to make it work, astronomers had to add ad hoc features like epicycles and equants. Over time, the model became messy and ham-handed. Copernicus reasoned that placing the sun at the center (in contrast to church doctrine) created a simpler and more elegant model. But why should the universe be simple and elegant? Because the God that Copernicus believed in as he affirmed in De Revolutionibus would never create the monstrosity that the Ptolemaic system had become.1 Copernicus was led by a religiously inspired esthetic sense to a correct understanding of the structure of the cosmos. No conflict between religion and science here.

Interestingly, this drive toward simplicity and elegance as a guide toward scientific truth has survived in modern physics in the search for a Grand Unified Theory or a Theory of Everything, even though this drive has been shorn of its original religious context. 

As another example, the 18th-century Scottish astronomer James Ferguson employed a religious argument to argue that stars are bodies like our sun that likely harbor their own planetary systems revolving around them. Ferguson wrote:

It is no wise probable that the Almighty, who always acts with infinite wisdom and does nothing in vain, should create so many glorious Suns, fit for so many important purposes, and place them at such distances from one another, without proper objects near enough to be benefitted by their influences. Whoever imagines they were created only to give a faint glimmering light to the inhabitants of this Globe, must have a very superficial knowledge of Astronomy, and a mean opinion of the Divine Wisdom.2

Ferguson certainly had no empirical evidence for the existence of exoplanets, but today we know that his religiously inspired insight led him to the correct understanding of the structure of the physical universe. Once again, no conflict between religion and science

Newton’s Religious Beliefs

In a passage of Cabello’s paper cited by Coyne, Cabello lets Issac Newton off the hook on the grounds that Newton had abandoned orthodox belief in the Trinity at a young age. His unorthodox religious beliefs may then have opened the way for his scientific accomplishments. But unorthodox religious beliefs are still religious beliefs, and they infused all aspects of Newton’s thinking. As he wrote to Richard Bentley:

I am forced to ascribe the design of the solar system to the counsel and contrivance of a voluntary Agent. The motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone but were imprest by an intelligent Agent.3

Newton’s religious beliefs certainly did not hinder his scientific accomplishments. 

The House of Wisdom

Cabello’s paper deals only with the influence of European Christianity on science. But Coyne likes to talk about religion in general as being incompatible with science. Perhaps he should study the medieval Islamic Abbasid Empire where one of the great early flowerings of science and culture took place. Centered on the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, Muslim astronomers calculated the circumference of the earth to a value close to modern measurements. The great mathematician al-Khwarizmi (10th century) developed algebra (al-jibr in Arabic), and the Latinized form of his name gave us the familiar word “algorithm.” In optics, the law of refraction known as Snell’s Law was worked out centuries earlier by Ibn-Sahl. Many advancements in engineering were also made during this time, especially in hydraulics and irrigation systems enabling food production in arid climates. There was simply no conflict between Islamic religion and science in the medieval Islamic world. 

One gets the impression that Coyne is not really concerned with religion writ large and its relationship to science, but really with a particular type of religion — the conservative evangelical Christianity he identifies with those pesky advocates of creationism and intelligent design that he so despises. But even here, he is off base. Many conservative Christians are capable of producing good science as we see all the time in the ID community.

Jealous, Dr. Coyne?

I dare say that Michael Behe has had a far greater influence on the field of evolutionary biology than Jerry Coyne has. Behe has conceptually influenced the entire field by introducing the term irreducible complexity, an idea that even skeptics must now engage. Note the words of Jan Spitzer in the Journal of Molecular Evolution, discussing the origin of life: 

Since the subject of cellular emergence of life is unusually complicated (we avoid the term ‘complex’ because of its association with ‘biocomplexity’ or ‘irreducible complexity’), it is unlikely that any overall theory of life’s nature, emergence, and evolution can be fully formulated, quantified, and experimentally investigated.4

When biologists resist using a word like “complex” simply to avoid being associated with the ID movement, you know Behe has had a major influence on the field. I don’t know that Coyne can match this influence and today he has become mostly just a polemicist. 

Perhaps Coyne is just jealous of the scientific achievements of the ID community. I don’t really know. But at the very least, his fidelity to the conflict thesis withers under critical scrutiny. 

Notes

For more on this argument see, Bruce Wrightsman, “The Legitimation of Scientific Belief: Theory Justification by Copernicus” in Scientific Discovery: Case Studies edited by T. Nickles, (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980), 51-66.

Quoted in Michael J. Crowe, “Astronomy and Religion (1780-1915): Four Case Studies Involving Ideas of Extraterrestrial Life,” Osiris 16 (2001): 212.

Quoted in Stephen Snobelen, “’God of gods, and Lord of lords:’ The Theology of Isaac Newton’s General Scholium to the Principia,” Osiris 16 (2001): 173.

Jan Spitzer, “Emergence of Life on Earth: A Physicochemical Jigsaw Puzzle,” Journal of Molecular Evolution 84 (2017): 2.

The mathematics of free will?

 

Ancient Greece: a synopsis.

AI overlord makes a show of strength.

 

The latter day prometheus?

 

The fossil record vs. Darwinian narrative.

 Fossil Friday: Nakridletia — The Rise and Fall (and Possible Resurrection) of a Fossil Insect Order

Gunter Bechly

This Fossil Friday features the reconstruction drawing of Strashila incredibilis, an extremely weird fossil insect from the Late Jurassic of Siberia. It was first described by Rasnitsyn (1992) as a new species, genus, and family, and attributed to an unknown order of holometabolan insects, possibly related to scorpionflies and fleas. Rasnitsyn suggested that strashilids were wingless blood-sucking ectoparasites of warm-blooded animals, most likely on the hairy wing membrane of pterosaurs. He based his interpretation on the putative presence of sucking-piercing mouthparts (that were later allegedly destroyed by improper preparation with alcohol) and large pincers on the hind limbs that supposedly were used to grab the host’s hairs or feather-like filaments.

In their leading textbook on insect evolution, Grimaldi & Engel (2005) agreed that strashilids were ectoparasitic mecopteroid insects, but considered their relationship as obscure and a closer affinity to fleas as insufficiently documented. Vrsansky et al. (2010) concurred with Rasnitsyn’s view and explicitly affirmed that such ectoparasitism can be interpreted as evidence for endothermy and sociality in pterosaurs. The latter authors described a very similarly looking new family Vosilidae from the Middle Jurassic Daohugou site in China, and erected a new insect order Nakridletia to accommodate these strange supposed parasites.

Challenged by Fantasy

A  few years later, this whole parasite interpretation was challeged to be mere fantasy by Huang et al. (2013), who studied new and very well-preserved material from the Middle Jurassic of China. They synonymized Vosilidae with Strashilidae and concluded that these insects were just amphibious flies of the modern family Nymphomyiidae. Even though some corrections of the earlier descriptions are without doubt valid (e.g., the absence of functional sucking-piercing mouthparts), the latter work is also compromised by some confusing issues (the fossils have no similarity with known Nymphomyiidae) and obvious errors (e.g., a confusion of dipteran march flies with ephemeropteran mayflies in Suppl. Fig. 8), of which the most important concerns the alleged presence of wings: there is only a single of the 11 studied fossil specimens that does possess anything resembling a wing-like strucure. This specimen only features a single supposed forewing, which seems much too large and somewhat out of place. Also the broad and lobed shape of this structure is very much unlike any dipteran forewings. In my view a superimposed plant remain would be a more likely alternative interpretation of this alleged wing. Furthermore, there are no halteres visible in any of the well-preserved specimens, which should be present in all dipteran insects as their typical club-like vestiges of hind wings that function as vibrating gyroscopes.

Huang et al. suggested that strashilids were amphibious or aquatic even as adult flies and, similar to living Nymphomyiidae, shed their wings after emergence and mating for oviposition in the water. However, even though the larvae of nymphomyiids are aquatic like many dipteran larvae, there are no living examples for aquatic adults. Also, all known adult Nyphomyiidae have a very elongate and slender body, unspecialized legs, and narrow wings with long hairs. Thus, they are not even remotely similar to the anatomy of strashilids. Last but not least, no putative nymphomyiid-like larvae were ever discovered in the same layers or even any other fossil localities of the same age at all. Nevertheless, the reinterpretation by Huang et al. (2013) seems to be generally considered and quoted as the final word on this matter, even in the notorious Wikipedia. No experts ever looked into this issue again.

A Darwinian Perspective

So , were strashilids a distinct order of parasitic insects or just aquatic flies? I suggest that the reinterpretation of Huang et al. (2013) is far from bulletproof and the validity of order Nakridletia should be reconsidered. From an intelligent design perspective there is another much more important thing to note: strashilids were perfectly adapted to a peculiar way of life with unique modifications, which appeared abruptly in the Middle Jurassic without any known precursors or obvious relatives that could be strashilid ancestors. This meets the expectations from a design approach much better than those from a Darwinian perspective.

References

Grimaldi D & Engel MS 2005. Evolution of the Insects. Cambridge University Press, New York (NY), xv+755 pp.

Huang D, Nel A, Cai C, Lin Q, Engel MS 2013. Amphibious flies and paedomorphism in the Jurassic period. Nature 495, 94–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11898

Rasnitsyn AP 1992. Strashila incredibilis, a new enigmatic mecopteroid insect with possible siphonapteran affinities from the Upper Jurassic of Siberia. Psyche 99(4), 323–334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/1992/20491

Vršanský P, Ren D, Shih C 2010. Nakridletia ord. n. – enigmatic insect parasites support sociality and endothermy of pterosaurs. AMBA Projekty 8, 1–16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285797717

The perenial overdog?

 

The laws of physics do not exclude/preclude the miraculous.

 

Physics: if you are not confused you haven't being paying attention.

 

Darwinisn vs. Darwinism II

 

On darwinian apologists sleight of hand

 Evolutionary Flimflam: Watch Out for These Common Parlor Tricks in Science Reporting

Jonathan Witt

I suspect the average person comes to accept modern evolutionary theory, not through a series of careful arguments, but through a near-constant drip of pro-evolution propaganda. The propaganda comes in many forms and from many directions. Here I want to focus on just one source, popular news stories about evolution, and specifically on a couple of parlor tricks often embedded in these articles.

Bait-and-Switch

Probably the most common trick begins with a news headline or lead sentence promising a new discovery of evolution in action. The article then highlights an actual, observed species changing over time. But the example it cites is mere microevolution, such as a change in fur color or minor changes in beak size or leg length. 

That won’t do. If Charles Darwin had argued that nature can produce modest variations in existing species, the collective response would have been, now tell us something we don’t know. Evolutionary theory needs to provide evidence of its distinctive claim, namely, that purely natural mechanisms can and do produce major innovations — something like the first wings, the first eyes, new molecular biological machines, or novel animal body plans. 

A recent example of this bait-and-switch begins with the headline, “Long-term Lizard Study Challenges the Rules of Evolutionary Biology.”1 The headline gives the impression that maybe the lizards in the study, refusing to play by the restrictive rules of standard evolutionary theory, hauled off and evolved in a much more daring way than conventional thinking had allowed. But then we learn that the study’s big finding helps explain cases where evolution doesn’t generate anything impressive — that is, cases of stasis, where a species remains largely unchanged for millions of years. 

Hmm, that sounds like the opposite of impressive evolutionary daring-do, doesn’t it? 

Troubled by this inconsistency but undaunted, we read on and are soon informed that the researchers have solved a big evolutionary conundrum. The news story invites us to wonder how there could be so many cases of stasis in the history of life when we see evolution doing amazing stuff right before our eyes all the time. The article doesn’t mention any of these amazing broad-daylight transformations. Instead it informs us that the study found that the lizards varied in minor ways (e.g., longer or shorter legs) and that the changes, rather than accumulating into something dramatically novel, canceled each other out. Voilà — an explanation for stasis.

That’s it. That’s the study’s big finding. No macroevolution. Just the observation of what was the common view before Darwin’s theory of evolution — that healthy members of a species can vary a bit, but only within strict limits.

To sum up the parlor trick: Promise to demonstrate bigtime evolution. Demonstrate minor changes and hope the audience doesn’t notice the difference. 

An Audacious Use of Stasis

A particularly brazen variation on this bait-and-switch appears in an article out of Ireland. The lead sentence announces, “Palaeontologists at UCC have discovered X-ray evidence of proteins in fossil feathers that sheds new light on feather evolution.”2 What is the discovery? That, contra expectations, the protein in question has not evolved for tens of millions of years. In other words, the findings suggest more stasis in the history of life and diminished evidence for evolution. 

So now it’s not microevolution (minor changes) standing in for macroevolution (big innovations). It’s a discovery of stasis (basically, no change) standing in for macroevolution. Laughable if you’re paying attention, but if you’re just skimming headlines and articles, well, the word “evolution” appears three times, and the scientific paper being reported on appeared in Nature Ecology & Evolution. Sounds like a whole lotta evolution goin’ on. 

Drip, drip, drip. So works the propaganda.

Dazzle and Distract

A second parlor trick used to the same end is a tad harder to spot. It involves reporting on a discovery that sheds light on how some complex biological process works, and then promises that the finding gives us important insights into how the process evolved. How so? The teaser turns out to be yet another of evolutionary theory’s many promissory notes, one you will grow old waiting on for payment.

We shouldn’t take the promise on faith, since it’s far from automatic that discovering how a given biological mechanism works will help biologists understand how the process evolved. Certainly it wouldn’t if evolution did not actually generate the mechanism in question. But even if we grant for the sake of argument that the biological process did evolve, and did so through blind material forces, it’s perfectly possible that gaining a better understanding of how a mechanism works would in no way reveal how the process it’s embedded in evolved. 

Nor is it enough to show that the newly understood mechanism is useful to the biological system it’s a part of. Yes, natural selection tends to favor the useful over the useless in the evolutionary process, but that doesn’t allow evolution’s blind process of gradual change to magically look ahead so as to bring together various parts to assemble an intricate new mechanism. The act of looking ahead (foresight) and planning for a distant goal is the exclusive domain of minds. Mindless evolution, lacking this capacity, requires a series of small, functional, random mutations (blind baby steps) in order to evolve, say, the first bat sonar or the first air-breathing animals. The evolutionist should detail a plausible stepwise path of this sort, and then we can talk.

This second parlor trick, to summarize, runs like this: (1) Highlight a fresh insight into how a biological mechanism works. (2) Tout the discovery as shedding important light on how a system or process evolved. (3) Don’t actually demonstrate #2, but instead dazzle and distract the reader with the challenging technical details of the discovery highlighted in #1.

The Curious Case of TCOF1

An example of this second parlor trick appears in a Science Daily news piece titled, “Study Explains How Part of the Nucleolus Evolved.”3 What did the researchers learn? “Biologists discovered that a scaffolding protein called TCOF1 is responsible for the formation of a biomolecular condensate called the fibrillar center, which forms within the cell nucleolus.”

We could challenge the phrasing there. The language makes it sound like the scaffolding protein single-handedly forms the fibrillar center, when we can be sure the protein is just one crucial player in a process involving many other factors without which we would have no fibrillar center. But set that quibble aside. 

The article further informs us that “biomolecular condensates perform many critical functions” in cells. Then we encounter a refreshing note of humility: “It is not well understood how proteins and other biomolecules come together to form these assemblies within cells.” Then an overdue qualifier: “The findings could help to explain a major evolutionary shift, which took place around 300 million years ago, in how the nucleolus is organized.” 

So we’ve gone from “Study Explains” in the headline to “The findings could help to explain.” 

Then another concession: “Biologists do not yet fully understand why this shift happened.” Although a welcome injection of honesty, the sentence also subtly implies that biologists mostly understand why the shift happened, just not fully. But the article doesn’t give us the mostly. It just implies that the understanding is out there and leaves us to accept the implicit claim on faith. 

What the article does explain is quite different from what the headline promised:

“If you look across the tree of life, the basic structure and function of the ribosome has remained quite static; however, the process of making it keeps evolving. Our hypothesis for why this process keeps evolving is that it might make it easier to assemble ribosomes by compartmentalizing the different biochemical reactions,” says Eliezer Calo, an associate professor of biology at MIT and the senior author of the study.

So, the ribosome presents another striking case of stasis, but at least the process of how it is made keeps evolving, or so we are told. But how do they know the process evolved, and evolved through mindless material mechanisms, as the theory of evolution holds? Just showing that nature has more than one way of making ribosomes doesn’t demonstrate that these methods evolved one from another, or from a common ancestral method. After all, the various methods might each have been separately designed, as the various methods for assembling cars were separately designed.

What of the researcher’s specific evolutionary hypothesis summarized in the block quote above? It’s at best an extremely partial explanation. He is saying that the assembly method evolved because the innovation might make the assembly go smoother. In other words, the explanation of how it evolved boils down to pointing out a possible functional improvement in the method. But usefulness is only a necessary condition of evolution by natural selection; it’s far from a sufficient condition, just as being able to dribble a ball is a necessary condition of being an NBA basketball player, but far from a sufficient one.

If the researchers had identified a definite functional improvement as an explanation for how the assembly method evolved, that would be weak tea; but they didn’t even do that. They only identified a possible functional improvement. And from all this we get the breathless headline, “Study Explains How Part of the Nucleolus Evolved.”

And so it goes. Drip, drip, drip.

Notes

Catherine Barzler, “Long-term Lizard Study Challenges the Rules of Evolutionary Biology,” Phys.org (October 9, 2023). 

“Dinosaur Feathers Reveal Traces of Ancient Proteins,” University College Cork, Ireland (September 22, 2023).

“Study Explains How Part of the Nucleolus Evolved,” Science Daily (August 15, 2023).

The cruelty of the Gods of atheism.

 

ID for the win?

 

Terraforming should begin at home?

 

On the divine name in the first century septuagint.

 

The king of Titans lays down the law.

 

The gap between conspiracy theory and actual conspiracy just keeps getting narrower?

 

Mathematics vs. OoL science.

 

Darwinism and teleology: Friends/enemies/frenemies?

 Did Darwin Banish Teleology from Nature or Not?

Richard Weikart

I have been reviewing a new collection from Cambridge University Press, Darwin Mythology: Debunking Myths, Correcting Falsehoods. (See my earlier posts here and here.) James G. Lennox opens his essay about Darwin’s views on teleology with Friedrich Engels’s statement in a letter to Karl Marx. Engels exulted that Darwin had demolished teleology. This is a view that is commonplace among many Darwinian biologists, as well as historians. Lennox, however, calls it a myth that Darwin banished teleology from nature.

Lennox defines teleology thus: “A teleological explanation is one in which some property, process or entity is said to exist or be taking place for the sake of a certain result or consequence.” In the course of the essay Lennox points out that when discussing organisms’ adaptations, Darwin often used the language of teleology: “final cause,” “contrivances for this end,” etc.

Lennox also correctly points out that Darwin’s teleology differed from that of Harvard biologist Asa Gray, who argued that teleology implied natural theology. Darwin completely rejected natural theology. Lennox is right that this makes Darwin’s and Gray’s teleology different.

The problem with Lennox’s analysis is twofold: 1) Darwin recognized that his use of teleological language could be problematic; and 2) the kind of teleology that Lennox claims Darwin embraced is trivial compared to the kind of teleology he rejected.

Darwin’s Teleological Language

To be sure, Darwin used teleological language when discussing organisms’ adaptations. Lennox quotes from an 1862 essay, where Darwin wrote that “the final cause of all this mimicry” among butterflies is evading predation. Lennox then states, “It is this valuable consequence of mimicry that explains its selective advantage — that is the end achieved by mimicry.” (p. 191) Thus, Darwin recognized that adaptations had purposes. For instance, the eye has a purpose — it is for seeing.

Sometimes Darwin’s contemporaries criticized him for using teleological language. In 1877 Darwin responded to Alphonse de Candolle’s critique:

There is much justice in your criticisms on my use of the terms object, end, purpose; but those who believe that organs have been gradually modified by natural selection for a special purpose, may I think use the above terms correctly though no conscious being has intervened. I have found much difficulty in my occasional attempts to avoid these terms; but I might perhaps have always spok[en] of a beneficial or serviceable effect.1

Darwin’s claim here that there was some justice in the critique, as well as his confession that he sometimes tried to avoid teleological terms, suggests that Darwin was not entirely comfortable using teleological language. However, he defends the use of teleological language nonetheless, because he believed that adaptations did serve a purpose — helping an organism survive and reproduce in the struggle for existence. In light of this, perhaps Lennox has a point.

The Teleology Darwin Did Banish from Nature

However, Lennox seems to miss the point that, even though Darwin admitted that adaptations served a purpose, he vociferously denied that the evolutionary process was teleological. When Engels and most scholars insist that Darwin banished teleology from nature, they are denying that evolution is a teleological process. They are not denying that specific organs of animals and plants serve specific purposes.

Darwin often stressed that evolution on the whole was non-teleological. In an 1881 letter to William Graham, Darwin stated that his primary disagreement with Graham “is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this.”2 Both here and in many other writings Darwin explicitly denied the existence of any over-arching purpose for organisms.

In 1861 Darwin wrote to Lyell a letter where he denied that adaptations had originated for a purpose: “No doubt these [i.e., variations] are all caused by some unknown law, but I cannot believe they were ordained for any purpose; & if not so ordained under domesticity, I can see no reason to believe that they were ordained in a state of nature.”3 Since variations are the source of evolutionary change, Darwin was hereby denying that evolution had any goal toward which it was moving.

Darwin often used the term “chance” to describe variations in nature, because he did not believe variations arose for any purpose or toward any goal. This is why Darwinian evolution is a non-teleological process. Thus, despite Lennox’s arguments, it still makes sense to say that Darwin banished teleology from the evolutionary process, even if biological adaptations do serve various purposes.

Notes

Darwin to Alphonse de Candolle, August 3, 1877, Darwin Correspondence Project, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-11092.xml&query=purpose.

Darwin to William Graham, July 3, 1881, Darwin Correspondence Project, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-13230.xml&query=purpose.

Darwin to Charles Lyell, August 13, 1861, Darwin Correspondence Project, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-3230.xml&query=purpose.