Sunday, 5 January 2025
Saturday, 4 January 2025
The undead continue to prowl Darwinism's badlands.
Darwin’s Zombies Are Still Shambling Along
The Icons of Evolution that Dr Jonathan Wells wrote about 24 years ago have not been put out of our misery. Like denizens of Zombie Science, they keep reappearing in popular science articles, cartoons, and even scientific journals. The perpetrators should know better. There is no excuse for perpetuating the mythic fables that Darwinians have used to popularize just-so stories of how natural selection supposedly works (but doesn’t under the spotlight).
Two of the icons appeared in publications recently. The old stories are retold without remorse, in spite of the fact that new evidence contradicts them.
The Peppered Myth Still Walks
Perhaps word of the falsification of the peppered myth has not yet reached the Far East. That’s doubtful, but the University of Michigan co-authors of a new study that could have told their colleagues in Singapore and Japan not to write as if the peppered myth is still a valid case of natural selection. News from the University of Singapore says bluntly,
Lepidopterans (butterflies and moths) exhibit a splendid diversity of wing colour patterns, and many species display black and white, or dark and bright, wing colour pattern variants associated with the presence and absence of melanin. Many of these wing colour pattern variants are textbook examples of natural selection and evolution. Iconic examples include the rapid increase in frequency of the melanic form of the British peppered moth Biston betularia, driven by the sootier and darker environment caused by carbon burning and industrialisation in the late 1800s in the United Kingdom, and the mimetic radiation of Heliconius butterflies, among others.
Can this be dismissed as a minor slip? Did they perhaps mean that peppered moths “were” or “used to be” textbook examples of natural selection and evolution? Clearly not; the press release includes a YouTube video by Antonia Monteiro, one of the co-authors of the paper in Science.1 The narrator calls it a “classic Darwinian story of natural selection.” The video repeats the peppered myth in all its gory, hoary just-so story form, claiming that the coloration provided camouflage as the moths rested on tree trunks and that nature selected them because color changes helped them evade predators — false claims made by Kettlewell and never substantiated since. We remind everyone that both light and dark moths are variants of the same species: Biston betularia.There was no origin of species. In the quote, they state that “many species” display dark and light “variants” yet they call these “textbook examples of natural selection and evolution.” Within species? How is that kind of selection going to get brains from bacteria?
What’s ironic is that the scientific findings undermine natural selection as the cause of the color variants. As I mentioned in a recent article, researchers have been finding that microRNAs and noncoding RNAs are likely responsible for the color changes — not mutations to the cortex gene or to any other gene. This new paper identifies a particular microRNA named mir-193, a derivative of ivory, a long noncoding RNA (lncRNA), as the regulatory switch that turns on light or dark coloration. The outcome depends on the switch’s interaction with ivory or with the mRNA transcript of another gene called ebony.
The video illogically says,
It appears that the mutations that regulate the presence and absence of ivory and mir-193 across many different species are the go-to mutations that are repeatedly used to create the dark/light polymorphisms in insects.
Do the moths (or a blind Selector) “use” mutations to “create” on purpose? These are not genetic mutations assumed in neo-Darwinism. They are switches present in all butterflies that can produce one polymorphism or another. In the case of peppered moths, both the dark and light forms existed before and after the industrial revolution. All the story demonstrated, therefore, was “a shift in the proportions of two existing varieties of the same species,” as Wells stated in Zombie Science (p. 64). And it was not demonstrated, Wells goes on to say, that the moths routinely rest on tree trunks or that predation by birds altered the proportions of the pre-existing varieties.
This is hardly a classic case of natural selection, therefore, and certainly not an instance of the origin of species. The new research merely finds a regulatory switching mechanism that can produce dark or light polymorphisms within species. MicroRNA transcripts of noncoding RNAs are likely implicated in variability in other animals as well.
Overall, our study identified a miRNA, processed from the primary transcript of a lncRNA, as the likely effector of a hotspot locus that underlies adaptive evolution in animals. This adds to a recent discovery of small noncoding RNAs being key regulators of adaptive flower color evolution and speciation. The burst of miRNA innovation at the base of Lepidoptera may have served as evolutionary raw materials to create a gamut of morphological diversity within this order, one of the most species-rich on earth.
This Is Not Your Grandpa’s Darwinism
The authors never mention genetic mutations, selection, inheritance, or fitness. The paper never says that phenotypic plasticity helps moths avoid predators. And Darwin the gradualist would have shuddered at any “burst of innovation” at the base of a taxonomic group. The authors did not witness a burst of innovation. They only asserted it.
This and future investigations of noncoding RNAs will shed light on the long-standing hypothesis that it is the complexity of swiftly evolving noncoding components of the genome (cis-acting regulatory DNA elements and trans-acting noncoding RNAs), rather than the relatively static evolution of protein sequences, that drives organismal complexity
Here again they assert “swiftly evolving” parts of the genome without proof. The old gradualistic neo-Darwinism, updated for modern genetics, would only have produced “relatively static evolution of protein sequences” by mutations. Complexity within a species, genus or family because of regulatory elements is not the same as universal common ancestry due to natural selection of random mutations. How, then, can this be a “textbook example of natural selection and evolution” as the authors claim in the press release? The paper doesn’t even mention natural selection.
The authors do not say what cues — whether environmental or otherwise — trigger action by the mir-193 regulatory switch. They mention four times that the colors are “adaptive” in some way, but non-Darwinian interpretations are possible: genetic drift, or (as some ID researchers are proposing) internal engineering: i.e., switches that can be triggered by environmental cues. The return of the light-colored peppered moths after the industrial revolution suggests that the switching is reversible. Connecting the activity of miRNAs and lncRNAs to environmental cues sounds like a good follow-up experiment for non-Darwinian scientists.
The Miller Myth Still Walks
It the same issue, Science trotted out another zombie icon for celebration: the Miller experiment.2 In Darwinian style, Antonion Lazcano’s article, “On the origins of organisms,” praises both Aleksander Oparin and Stanley Miller. “The heterotrophic theory of the origin of life turns 100,” the subtitle announces triumphantly. Oparin’s 1924 book, The Origin of Life,
proposed that life had emerged in an oxygen-free primitive environment that led to the synthesis and accumulation of organic compounds that subsequently formed gel-like droplets from which the first heterotrophic organisms evolved. The volume became quite popular among student associations, workers’ clubs, and biology teachers, and the small edition quickly sold out, never to be reprinted. On its 100th anniversary, Oparin’s visionary work is worth revisiting.
Oparin the Marxist, who had been influenced by Ernst Haeckel, expanded his book for a 1936 edition whose 1938 translation was highly influential to Harold Urey. His PhD student Stanley Miller is pictured in a large photo standing by his spark-discharge apparatus.
Does Lazcano ever warn his readers that Oparin and Miller’s works have been demoted to irrelevant historical footnotes because the early earth likely had oxygen? Does he lament the fact that Miller used an improbable reducing atmosphere? Does he point out that the predominant product of the spark-discharge apparatus was tar that would have destroyed the desired products faster than they formed, had Miller not built a trap to separate them out? No; instead, he calls the experiment “spectacular” —
The 1938 English translation of Oparin’s second book played a seminal role in shaping Stanley L. Miller’s famous 1953 synthesis of amino acids and other organic compounds under possible primitive conditions. The spectacular results of Miller’s laboratory simulation marked the start of the laboratory phase of what we now call prebiotic chemistry.
Why Risky? And Useful to Whom?
Lazcano grants that “No scientific theory remains unchanged as time goes by, and the prebiotic soup remains a useful but risky metaphor.”
The fact that a number of biochemical components of contemporary forms of life can be synthesized nonenzymatically does not necessarily imply that they were also essential for the origin of life or that they were available in the primitive environment.
We do not know when, where, or how life appeared on Earth, but the current debates on the significance of extraterrestrial organic molecules, together with our laboratory reconstructions of primitive environments, are in themselves a recognition of the key role that prebiotic chemistry played in the processes that led to the emergence of the first life-forms.
Oparin and Miller had the right religion, in other words: materialism. They had the wrong atmosphere. They had the wrong ingredients. They interfered in the experimental design. But they had the right doctrine: some unknown form of “prebiotic chemistry” led to “the emergence of the first life-forms” — no intelligence allowed.
For this reason — science notwithstanding — the mainstream media continues to allow these zombie icons to “shed light” on evolution, rising from the tombs, putting on Darwin costumes, holding up their sparking flasks, distributing samples of prebiotic soup to the townspeople as peppered moths flutter about their heads.
Notes
Shen Tian et al., A microRNA is the effector gene of a classic evolutionary hotspot locus. Science 5 Dec 2024, Vol 386, Issue 6726, pp. 1135-1141. DOI: 10.1126/science.adp7899.
Antonio Lazcano, On the origins of organisms. Science 5 Dec 2024, Vol 386, Issue 6726, pp. 1098-1099. DOI: 10.1126/science.ads5691.
The fossil record on homoiothermic animals vs. Darwin.
Fossil Friday: A Scientific Controversy About Warm-Blooded Animals
This Fossil Friday features the exceptionally well-preserved fossil bird Nahmavis grandei from the Eocene Green River Formation of Wyoming, as an example for a fossil representative of warm-blooded animals. Nowadays, every high-school biology class teaches that mammals and birds, even though both are warm-blooded tetrapods, are not closely related and were derived from different reptilian-like ancestors. Their similar physiology is attributed to so-called convergent evolution, thus is claimed to have had an independent evolutionary origin. However, if generally anatomical, physiological, genetic, and behavioral similarities are mostly explained by common descent, why are all warm-blooded animals not grouped together as descendants of a common warm-blooded ancestor? Indeed, based on much earlier observations of John Ray (1693), Charles Darwin’s famous opponent at the British Museum for Natural History, the paleontologist Richard Owen (1866), who had coined the word dinosaur, had first suggested to group birds and mammals together in a taxon Haematothermia, based on their similar warm-blooded physiology.
This was mostly ignored by other biologists until about 120 years later, when the two maverick biologists Søren Løvtrup (1977, 1985) and Brian Gardiner (1982, 1993) took up the idea and again suggested that all warm-blooded vertebrates form a clade Haemothermia, thus birds and mammals would be most closely related sister groups. They both suggested that the complex physiological similarities are unlikely to be convergences and rather represent deep evolutionary homologies. Nobody less than the famous French vertebrate paleontologist Philippe Janvier (1984) even published a reconstruction drawing how a hypothetical ancestor of Haemothermia might have looked like (reproduced by Sivgin 2020). This went against a growing consensus among evolutionary biologists that mammals were derived from synapsid “mammal-like reptiles” like the Permian pelycosaurs, while birds were diapsids more closely related to dinosaurs and crocodiles as well as other living reptiles. Consequently, their suggestion was immediately met with harsh criticism (Benton 1985, 1991, Kemp 1988, Gauthier et al. 1988a, 1988b) and their “radical hypothesis” (Peters 2014) was ultimately rejected as absurd (Kuhn-Schnyder 2009). The reason were the numerous other similarities from skeleton to genomics (e.g., Janke & Arnason 1997) that rather supported the mainstream view.
Pterosaurs and Dinosaurs
However, it must be noted that Gardiner (1993) explicitly agreed that pterosaurs and dinosaurs are close relatives of birds, and “mammal-like reptiles” were relatives and ancestors of mammals. He simply included those reptile-like groups in Haematothermia, and indeed there has been considerable evidence accumulated in the past decades that they also were warm-blooded. Here is a quote from Gardiner’s (1993) abstract:
An exhaustive parsimony analysis of amniote phylogeny using 97 characters has substantiated the hypothesis that mammals and birds are sister groups. This deduction is further supported by parasitological and molecular evidence. The presumed importance of “synapsid” fossils in amniote phylogeny is questioned and it is concluded that they represent a transformation series which, when broken down into constituent monophyletic groups, does not support the separation of the Mammalia from the remainder of the amniotes. Fossil members of the Haematothermia include pterosaurs and “dinosaurs” (both stem-group birds) and Dinocephalia, Dicynodontia, Gorgonopsida and Therocephalia (all stem-group mammals). The Dromaeosauridae are the most crownward stem-group birds and the Morganucodontidae the most crownward stem-group mammals.
Thus, Gardiner (1993) rather suggested that Synapsida and Archosauria are sister groups, which is a hypothesis that is still endorsed by the highly controversial fringe paleontologist David Peters (2024) in his large reptile tree based on 2323 taxa and 236 characters.
Gardiner is said to still have embraced the Haematothermia hypothesis until later in his life (Naish 2008, 2012). Nevertheless, the idea of such a clade of warm-blooded animals was quickly buried and forgotten by the scientific community again, so that the work of Løvtrup and Gardiner is not even mentioned anymore in modern treatises on the origin of endothermy in vertebrates (e.g., Koteja 2004, Nespolo et al. 2011, Benton 2021, Grigg et al. 2022, Faure-Brac et al. 2024). After all, isn’t it really silly to just look at a superficial similarity like warm-bloodedness and ignore all the conflicting evidence. Yes, that might have been silly indeed, but it was not at all what Løvtrup and Gardiner did. Indeed they assembled substantial evidence for their Haematothermia hypothesis that went far beyond only a superficial similarity in physiology, but included a cladistic analysis of 28 specific similarities, of which even the most ardent critics recognized at least 8 as valid (Kemp 1988).
Also, other authors often admitted that birds and mammals share many similarities of the “cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, endocrine and nervous systems” (Carvalho & Gonçalves 2011). Even more recently, a paper on the supposed convergences between birds and mammals published by Wu & Wang (2019) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, confirmed these similarities and suggesting even more:
Extant birds and mammals share a number of highly similar characteristics, including but not limited to, enhanced hearing, vocal communication, endothermy, insulation, shivering, respiratory turbinates, high basal metabolism, grinding, sustained activity, four-chambered heart, high blood pressure, and intensive parental care.
A Very Incomplete List
Here is a very incomplete list of a dozen complex derived similarities shared by birds and mammals, which I stumbled upon during a quick survey of the recent scientific literature I made for this article:
Visceral endothermy or warm-bloodedness means that birds and mammals share the ability to maintain a stable internal body temperature, a characteristic crucial for active living in a wide range of environmental conditions (Nespolo et al. 2011). If this endothermy would be homologous in birds and mammals we should expect that they acquired this trait at the same time, which is exactly what we find (Benton 2021), allegedly based on a shared adaptation to nocturnality in their early evolution (Wu & Wang 2019). Of course, the warm-bloodedness correlates with high metabolic rates in birds and mammals, compared to most reptiles, supporting their increased energetic demand for sustained activity and thermoregulation.
Mammals and birds possess a four-chambered heart that efficiently separates oxygenated and deoxygenated blood, facilitating high metabolic rates required for endothermy. However it must be noted that a four-chambered heart is also present in crocodylians, who may have secondarily reverted to ectothermy (Grigg et al. 2022). With this knowledge I suppose that Gardiner would have decided to include crocs in his Haematothermia clade of synapsids and archosaurs.
Both birds and mammals posses integumental structures (feathers in birds and fur in mammals), made from keratin and originating from placodes that are homologous to reptilian scales, as specialized body coverings for insulation to reduce heat loss, which is of course a crucial adaptation for endothermy (Chernova 2005, Dhouailly 2009, Di-Poï & Milinkovitch 2016).
Even though very different in organisation, birds and mammals have the most complex lungs among vertebrates and a highly efficient respiratory systems that support their high metabolic demands (Meyer et al. 1981, Powell & Hopkins 2004, West et al. 2007).
Both birds and mammals exhibit relatively large brains compared to body size, particularly in regions associated with higher cognitive function, such as learning, problem-solving, and social behaviors. More specifically, only mammals and birds possess a well-developed neocortex, called dorsal ventricular ridge (DVR) in birds (UChicago Medicine 2012, Kebschull 2020, Stacho et al. 2020, Ball & Balthazart 2021). Apart from the increased relative brain size and highly laminar telencephalic areas, birds and mammals also share a complex cerebellar folding, enhancing motor control and coordination, as well as advanced auditory circuits capable of processing complex sounds (Striedter & Northcutt 2019).
Only mammals and birds have episodic-like memory (Rattenborg & Martinez-Gonzalez 2011, 2013).
Even though sleep was for decades considered to be exclusive to mammals and birds, it is meanwhile shown to be a widespread phenomenon in the animal kingdom. However, “REM sleep, the major source of dreams, and slow wave sleep are unique to mammals and birds” (AAAS 2015, Hayashi et al. 2015).
Birds and mammals have specialized hearing mechanisms, including middle ear ossicles (ossicular chain) that transmit sound vibrations effectively, allowing for acute auditory sensitivity (Köppl 2011, Anthwal et al. 2012: fig. 1).
Both groups possess complex endocrine hormonal systems that regulate growth, metabolism, and reproduction. Actually, “birds produce homologues of the vast majority of mammalian hormones. These can have similar roles in birds and mammals.” (Scanes 2015). For instance, the thyroid and adrenal glands play essential roles in metabolic rate control, and prolactin controls seasonality in birds and mammals (Stewart & Marshall 2022).
Both birds and mammals engage in complex social behaviours, including cooperation, communication, intricate mating rituals and significant parental care, including prolonged juvenile periods and provisioning of food, which enhances offspring survival in challenging environments. Play behaviour was long considered to be unique to mammals and birds (Dinets 2023), but it has been meanwhile recorded from a few ectothermic animal species as well, but it is still only widely occurring and well-developed in birds and mammals.
Both groups possess complex endocrine hormonal systems that regulate growth, metabolism, and reproduction. Actually, “birds produce homologues of the vast majority of mammalian hormones. These can have similar roles in birds and mammals.” (Scanes 2015). For instance, the thyroid and adrenal glands play essential roles in metabolic rate control, and prolactin controls seasonality in birds and mammals (Stewart & Marshall 2022).
Both birds and mammals engage in complex social behaviours, including cooperation, communication, intricate mating rituals and significant parental care, including prolonged juvenile periods and provisioning of food, which enhances offspring survival in challenging environments. Play behaviour was long considered to be unique to mammals and birds (Dinets 2023), but it has been meanwhile recorded from a few ectothermic animal species as well, but it is still only widely occurring and well-developed in birds and mammals.
A cladistic study of 16 ultrastructure characters of spermatozoa (Jamieson & Healy 1992) strongly supported the bird + mammal clade (Haemothermia) with three uniquely derived similarities, and did not substantiate the traditional grouping. This is significant because it is a totally independent source of evidence unrelated to warm-blooded physiology.
In spite of differential rates of transposable element accumulation “the genome size in mammals and birds shows remarkably little interspecific variation compared with other taxa.” The results of a study by Kapusta et al. (2017) imply that “DNA removal in both mammals and birds has proceeded mostly through large segmental deletions”, which has been called an “accordion model” of genome size evolution.
All these striking similarities would have to be considered as convergent adaptations, which were the result of similar selective pressures in birds and mammals that have led to the independent origin of these complex traits. So, both alternatives, the mainstream view and the Haematothermia hypothesis, imply a lot of convergences, so that many similarities cannot be readily explained with common descent. Ultimately, a bureaucratic counting of which alternative is supported by a few more similarities (see Kemp 1988) decides for evolutionary biologists, which common descent hypothesis is embraced and which is rejected as absurd. If you look at many of the publication dates of the references in my list above, you see that a lot more characters that would support Haematothermia have been discovered since the time of Løvtrup and Gardiner.
To be clear, I do not suggest that the Haematothermia hypothesis is a better alternative to the mainstream view, but rather suggest that the strongly conflicting data point to a deeper problem. In the view of us critics of neo-Darwinian evolution, the large amount of incongruent and conflicting evidence rather questions all alternatives and the very paradigm of common descent itself. Even though common descent may well still be true, either on a universal level or at least for more restricted groups, it cannot be convincingly demonstrated by just pointing to shared similarities. Those similarities would have to be overwhelmingly congruent and mostly point to the same nested hierarchy, if the story of a single tree of life would be true. But they don’t. Incongruent evidence is found abundantly in all groups and all levels of the taxonomic hierarchy. The theory of Darwinism made a prediction of similarities that neatly fall into a nested hierarchy without significant incongruence, but it failed the test by empirical data miserably. Other processes than common descent with modification have to account for the similarities and differences between organisms, and intelligent design definitely is a premier candidate.
Ignoring the Evidence
How do popularizers of Darwinism such as Richard Dawkins react? Unsurprisingly, they just ignore the evidence and boldly tell their gullible fanboys (and girls) that evolution is a proven fact because all data unambiguously suggest a single true tree of life. Is this mere ignorance or deliberate deception? The materialist-naturalist world view critically depends of Darwinian evolution and must defend it at all cost, even if it means that the facts have to be tweaked, fudged, and denied to fit the theory. And all critics must be silenced as dangerous science-deniers and peddlers of pseudoscience and evil religious superstition. More and more people no longer fall for this crude propaganda and rather follow the evidence wherever it leads. Isn’t this what science is all about, or at least should be?
References
AAAS 2015. Neurons that regulate sleep stages revealed. EurekAlert! October 22, 2015. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/746676
Anthwal N, Joshi L & Tucker AS 2012. Evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw: adaptations and novel structures. Journal of Anatomy 222(1), 147–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2012.01526.x
Ball GF & Balthazart J 2021. Evolutionary neuroscience: Are the brains of birds and mammals really so different? Current Biology 31(13), R840–R842. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.05.004
Benton MJ 1985. Classification and phylogeny of the diapsid reptiles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 84(2), 97–164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1985.tb01796.x
Benton MJ 1991. Amniote phylogeny. pp. 317–330 in: Schultze H-P & Trueb L (eds). Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods: Controversy and Consensus. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (NY) and London (UK), 576 pp. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctv75d32t.13
Benton MJ 2021. The origin of endothermy in synapsids and archosaurs and arms races in the Triassic. Gondwana Research 100, 261–289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2020.08.003
Carvalho O & Gonçalves C 2011. Comparative Physiology of the Respiratory System in the Animal Kingdom. The Open Biology Journal 4, 35–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874196701104010035
Chernova OF 2005. One More Example of Morphological Convergence: Similarity between the Architectonics of Feather and Hair. Doklady Biological Sciences 405(3), 446–450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10630-005-0161-3
Dinets V 2023. Play behavior in ectothermic vertebrates. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 155: 105428, 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105428
Di-Poï N & Milinkovitch MC 2016. The anatomical placode in reptile scale morphogenesis indicates shared ancestry among skin appendages in amniotes. Science Advances 2(6): e1600708, 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600708
Dhouailly D 2009. A new scenario for the evolutionary origin of hair, feather, and avian scales. Journal of Anatomy 214(4), 587–606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.01041.x
Faure-Brac MG, Woodward HN, Aubier P & Cubo J 2024. On the origins of endothermy in amniotes. iScience 27(4): 109375, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.109375
Gardiner BG 1982. Tetrapod classification. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 74(3), 207–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1982.tb01148.x
Gardiner BG 1993. Haematothermia: Warm-Blooded Amniotes. Cladistics 9(4), 369–395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.1993.tb00232.x
Gauthier JA, Kluge AG & Rowe T 1988a. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics 4(2), 105–209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.1988.tb00514.x
Gauthier JA, Kluge AG & Rowe T 1988b. The early evolution of the Amniota. pp. 103–155 in: Benton MJ (ed.). The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods. Volume 1: Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), 373 pp.
Grigg G, Nowack J, Eduardo Pereira Wilken Bicudo J, Chandra Bal N, Woodward HN & Seymour RS 2022. Whole-body endothermy: ancient, homologous and widespread among the ancestors of mammals, birds and crocodylians. Biological Reviews 97, 766–801. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12822
Hayashi Y, Kashiwagi M, Yasuda K, Ando R, Kanuka M, Sakai K & Itohara S 2015. Cells of a common developmental origin regulate REM/non-REM sleep and wakefulness in mice. Science 350(6263), 957–961. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad1023
Jamieson BGM & Healy JM 1992. The Phylogenetic Position of the Tuatara, Sphenodon (Sphenodontida, Amniota), as Indicated by Cladistic Analysis of the Ultrastructure of Spermatozoa. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 335(1274), 207–219. https://www.jstor.org/stable/55582
Janke A & Arnason U 1997. The complete mitochondrial genome of Alligator mississippiensis and the separation between recent Archosauria (birds and crocodiles). Molecular Biology and Evolution 14(12), 1266–1272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025736
Janvier P 1984. El divorcio del ave y del cocodrilo. Mundo Cientifico 32, 14–16.
Kapusta A, Suh A & Feschotte C 2017. Dynamics of genome size evolution in birds and mammals. PNAS 114(8), E1460–E1469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616702114
Kebschull J 2020. Bird brains: They are more like ours than we thought. Stanford Luo Lab — Principles of Neurobiology Blog November 17, 2020. https://luolab.stanford.edu/news/bird-brains-they-are-more-ours-we-thought
Kemp TS 1988. Haemothermia or Archosauria? The interrelationships of mammals, birds and crocodiles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 92(1), 67–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1988.tb01527.x
Köppl C 2011. Birds – same thing, but different? Convergent evolution in the avian and mammalian auditory systems provides informative comparative models. Hearing Research 273(1-2), 65–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2010.03.095
Koteja P 2004. The Evolution of Concepts on the Evolution of Endothermy in Birds and Mammals. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 77(6), 1043–1050: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/423741
Kuhn-Schnyder E 2009. Bemerkungen eines Paläontologen zur Klassifikation der Amniota von B. G. Gardiner (1982) und S. Løvtrup (1985). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 25(1), 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.1987.tb00909.x
Løvtrup S 1977. The Phylogeny of Vertebrata. John Wiley, London (UK).
Peters D 2014. Gardiner 1982 – a radical hypothesis on reptile relationships. Pterosaur Heresies March 17, 2014. https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/gardiner-1982-a-radical-hypothesis-on-reptile-relationships/
Peters D 2024. Reptile Family Tree. http://www.reptileevolution.com/images/tetrapods/LargeReptileFamilyTree3.pdf
Powell FL & Hopkins SR 2004. Comparative Physiology of Lung Complexity: Implications for Gas Exchange. Physiology 19(2), 55–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/nips.01469.2003
Rattenborg NC & Martinez-Gonzalez D 2011. A bird-brain view of episodic memory. Behavioural Brain Research 222(1), 236–245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.030
Rattenborg NC & Martinez-Gonzalez D 2013. Episodic-like memory and divergent brain systems in mammals and birds. PNAS 110(40), E3741–E3741. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312035110
Ray J 1693. Synopsis Methodica Animalium Quadrupedum et Serpentini Generis. Robert Southwell, London (UK).
Scanes CG 2015. Avian Endocrine System. Chapter 22, pp. 489–496 in: Sturkie’s Avian Physiology. 6th Ed. Academic Press / Elsevier, Amsterdam (NL). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-407160-5.00022-1
Sivgin TK 2020. Unorthodox Ideas about Bird Origins. Manospondylus August 26, 2020. https://www.manospondylus.com/2020/08/unorthodox-ideas-about-bird-origins.html
Stacho M, Herold C, Rook N, Wagner H, Axer M, Amunts K & Güntürkün O 2020. A cortex-like canonical circuit in the avian forebrain. Science 369(6511): eabc5534, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc5534
Stewart C & Marshall CJ 2022. Seasonality of prolactin in birds and mammals. JEZ-A Ecological and Integrative Physiology 337(9-10), 919–938. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.2634
Striedter GF & Northcutt RG 2019. The Rise of Endothermy: Mammals, but also Birds. Chapter 6, pp. 337–422 in: Brains Through Time: A Natural History of Vertebrates. Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195125689.003.0006
UChicago Medicine 2012. Homolog of Mammalian Neocortex Found in Bird Brain. UChicago Medicine News September 30, 2012. https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/news/homolog-of-mammalian-neocortex-found-in-bird-brain
West JB, Watson RR & Fu Z 2007. Major differences in the pulmonary circulation between birds and mammals. Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology 157(2-3), 382–390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resp.2006.12.005
Wu Y & Wang H 2019. Convergent evolution of bird-mammal shared characteristics for adapting to nocturnality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 286(1897): 20182185, 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2185
Friday, 3 January 2025
The lawless dead vs. Eternal torture.
Roman 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?"
At death law ends and hence sin ends and sanction for sin ends.
Romans ch.6:7NIV"because anyone who has died has been set free from sin."
These facts are key to understanding how Christ substitutionary atonement works.
If it is not literally the case that no further penalty can be exacted from the dead as the transition from living to dead is itself a plenary payment of the Divine sanction Christ death and resurrection does not constitute a legal substitution for anyone.
So the claim of some kind of additional post mortem penalty is irrational.
Wednesday, 1 January 2025
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
Monday, 30 December 2024
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.
Sunday, 29 December 2024
More OoL science vs. Design denial.
The Cell Division Challenge to Eukaryogenesis — And to Evolution
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)