Thursday, 9 January 2025
Neanderthals: disinherited no more? II
Neanderthals May Be “Same Species” As Us
At ScienceAlert, David Nield Reports on a new study from the University of Padua:
Our species is defined by a long list of cultural and genetic traits that set us apart from our ancient counterparts.
New research suggests at least some key distinctions date back earlier than previously estimated, hinting that modern and archaic humans — including our close, extinct relatives — have more in common than we ever thought.
“Our results point to a scenario where Modern and Archaic should be regarded as populations of an otherwise common human species, which independently accumulated mutations and cultural innovations,” writes a team of researchers led by biologist Luca Pagani from the University of Padova in Italy.
“Archaic Humans Might Actually Be The Same Species as Us, Study Suggests,” January 7, 2025
Or, as Justin Jackson puts it at Phys.org, “Findings challenge traditional models that attribute certain genetic innovations exclusively to modern Homo sapiens. Similarities observed in both modern and archaic human genomes suggest many hallmarks of the Homo sapiens genetic landscape arose before the lineages split.”
Coalescence Analyses and Molecular Clock Assessments
Specifically, the abstract of the open-access preprint reads,
Homo sapiens diverged from its ancestors in fundamental ways, reflected in recent genomic acquisitions like the PAR2-Y chromosome translocation. Here we show that despite morphological and cultural differences between modern and archaic humans, these human groups share these recent acquisitions. Our modern lineage shows recent functional variants in only 56 genes, of which 24 are linked to brain functions and skull morphology.
Luca Pagani et al., Partitioning the genomic journey to becoming Homo sapiens, bioRxiv (2024)
Using coalescence analyses and molecular clock assessments, the researchers reconstructed a timeline of genetic events, according to which a population bottleneck of humans occurred about 900,000 years ago. Then modern humans diverged from Neanderthals and Denisovans about 650,000 years ago. And they also mingled again about 350,000 years ago.
This version of human history counters the usual tendency to keep Neanderthals and Denisovans separate from modern humans — most likely because in an evolution-based scheme, someone must be the subhuman.
And now who will researchers draft for that role?
A pledge of eternal sacred service.
Psalm ch.19:10,11NIV"They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
than honey from the honeycomb.
11By them your servant is warned;
in keeping them there is great reward."
If you do not see sacred service according to JEHOVAH'S truth as it's own reward then paradise whether the heavenly paradise or the earthly paradise is not your thing. Because the perfect paradise is essentially sacred service on steroids,
Revelation ch.4:8NIV"Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “’Holy, holy, holy is the LORD God Almighty,’ who was, and is, and is to come.”"
Darwinists invite us to come see Darwinism for our selves.
“Evolution in Real Time” (Yeah, Right)
The difficulty about denying evolution is that it’s happening all around us. I mean, just look — every few weeks or so another breathless press release or news article announces that scientists have observed “evolution in real time.”
Although these reports do not often mention that there is a debate over evolution, they serve an important rhetorical purpose in that debate. After all, the biggest challenge to Darwin’s theory is that it might not work in theory — the math does not seem to add up. One way to deal with the theoretical problems is to simply sidestep them altogether: “Maybe it doesn’t seem that evolution should work — but look, it’s happening right before your eyes!”
And it’s true — countless experiments do show evolution in real time. The trouble is, “evolution” itself isn’t really the thing in question in the evolution debate. Everyone who knows anything about biology (and most who don’t) believes in evolution in some sense of the word. After all, Darwin was not the first to notice that variations exist within populations, or that children can be different from their parents, or that some of these variations confer survival benefits while others are detrimental. The big question is whether these factors alone can drive the construction of novel complex systems of interrelated parts, such as characterize biological life.
With that in mind, let’s take a look at a few of the most recent “evolution in real time” proclamations, and see whether any of them actually bears relevance to the evolution debate.
1. Evolving to Be Normal (in the Mountains)
A recent case of “evolution in action” comes from a Study of human (for now!) women in Tibet. A news article dramatically proclaims: “Humans Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes on the Tibetan Plateau.”
So, what are the new features of these evolving humans? (Are they on their way to becoming an alien species?)
Well, according to the study, Tibetan women are able to deal with high altitudes better than women of other ethnic backgrounds, on average, because they have … unusually normal hemoglobin levels. Excessive hemoglobin makes the blood more viscous, impeding circulation, and no women in the study had excessively high hemoglobin. In other words, there was loss of variety in the population, as traits that caused problems were eliminated by the harsh environment. The study also found that Tibetan women with traits favoring circulation (a wide left ventricle in the heart, etc.) were able to have more live births than Tibetan women with poorer circulation.
Basically, the study shows that harsh environments can weed out the unfit — which isn’t exactly a controversial idea. The study does indeed prove “evolution,” in the broad sense of the word. But it does not prove anything that is currently being debated.
2. Staying the Same — In the Blink of an Eye!
According to a news report from October 2024, the recently published results of a 30-year-long study demonstrate “evolution happening in real time” in snail populations. The researchers introduced crab snails to an environment inhabited by wave snails, and watched as the poorly adapted crab snails evolved over generations to look more like the well-adapted wave snails. The article informs us:
Normally, scientists have believed that it takes countless centuries for evolution to produce major changes in any species. However, a new study has witnessed this amazing process unfold in a figurate blink of an eye.
The rhetoric here should be obvious: If evolution can happen in just 30 years, why should we doubt that it can happen over millions of years?
And what kind of amazing new features is evolution able to conjure up in the “blink of an eye”?
Well, features that were already there:
What makes this study particularly fascinating is that the snails didn’t evolve these new traits from scratch. Instead, they tapped into genetic diversity that was already present in their population, albeit at low levels.
and possibly traits that slipped in through some hanky-panky with the locals
…This existing genetic variation, combined with possible gene flow from neighboring wave snail populations, allowed for rapid adaptation to the new environment.
3. The Importance of Already Existing
A similar example of “evolution in real time” comes from 2020 press release from the University of Vienna, announcing that Parachlamydia bacteria can adapt to their host to become more infectious.
So how do they adapt? Well, according to the Study, the population adapted largely by means of some genes that were already there getting passed on more than some other genes that were also already there: “standing genetic variation in the initial ancestral population — the founder Chlamydia and amoeba populations from which both regimes were initiated — appeared to be particularly important for the observed evolutionary changes.”
I would submit that that is to be expected.
4. “Evolving” into a Baby
Of course, I am not denying that novel mutations happens. Sometimes, by random error, a truly novel genetic sequence appears, and sometimes the change is adaptive. However, complex systems don’t get built this way.
So, a 2016 Article in Science boasted:
Many people think evolution requires thousands or millions of years, but biologists know it can happen fast. Now, thanks to the genomic revolution, researchers can actually track the population-level genetic shifts that mark evolution in action — and they’re doing this in humans.
But you can probably guess the type of changes that are measured. Lactose tolerance, blue eyes, blond hair, etc. These are minor variations within complex systems, not the construction of complex systems.
An especially ironic example is lactose tolerance. Babies consume lots of lactose in breastmilk, but human bodies are programmed to turn off that function after we stop nursing — or, that was the case until some humans started the practice of eternally nursing their bovine neighbors. Then (the classic story goes) “lactase persistence” was selected for, and the lactose processing facilities were never shut down. Michael Behe has compared this adaptation to “a small screw falling out of your car that renders the emergency brake inoperable.” The appearance of lactose tolerance doesn’t show evolution in action making any complex, new thing — it shows us becoming perpetual babies when we learned that some big, dumb animals would let us nurse them.
Whenever you hear about evolution in action, you can be sure that it wasn’t caught in action building a novel structure — at best, it was seen causing a neutral tweak to an existing structure, and at worst it was caught jettisoning sophisticated equipment for short term benefits.
5. Proving “Evolution” to the Yokels
A 2019 Article in The Atlantic tells the story of evolutionary biologist Rowan Barrett’s adventures capturing “evolution in real time” (as the title of the article puts it) in rural Nebraska. It’s a nice fish-out-of-water story:
Roughly a third of Nebraskans believe that living things were created as they are now. Another third think that evolution occurs, but through God’s design. Given those beliefs, I asked Barrett whether he ever encountered resistance when talking to his new friends about his work. “In the early trips, when first meeting people, I would talk generally about genetics and natural selection. I wouldn’t use the E word,” he said. “It’s one of those trigger words where, in certain parts of the U.S., people just stop listening to you.”
But he added that all of them comprehended the essence of evolution, even if they explicitly rejected it. “A lot of them are farmers, who have a very good understanding of inheritance, and genetics,” he said. “A lot of them hunt, so they’ve got the survival-of-the-fittest thing down. They understand variation, and they know that a slow deer is easier to shoot than a fast deer. Inheritance, variation, fitness … all the pieces are there.”
“I’d never push too hard. I never explicitly said, ‘Do you believe in it or not? Have I now convinced you?’” he told me. “I just had some long conversations over beers at BBQs and high-school football games. And I found that in subsequent trips, I could use the E word and not get the flinch.”
Yes, all the pieces are there…but what do they add up to? Barrett’s study is about changes in things like mouse fur color, which should be no cause for alarm even for the most science-hating creationist in Nebraska. A mutation that changes the color of a mouse’s fur is one thing, but building a mouse by compiling such mutations is another.
Yes, all the pieces are there…but what do they add up to? Barrett’s study is about changes in things like mouse fur color, which should be no cause for alarm even for the most science-hating creationist in Nebraska. A mutation that changes the color of a mouse’s fur is one thing, but building a mouse by compiling such mutations is another.
6. The Same, but Bigger
Granted, some evolutionary changes are more dramatic — but only superficially so.
For example, an April 2024 article reports that Dr. Tyrone Lavery at University of Melbourne has observed “evolutionary phenomenon happening rapidly” — lineages of large bats evolving from smaller bats multiple times across the Solomon Islands.
However, as Lavery himself notes, “Although they are very different sizes, the bats’ DNA is very similar.”
Some traits are dramatic, but don’t indicate an increase in complexity or a fundamentally new structure. And again (once again) fundamentally new complex structures are the main thing in question.
7. How to Put Things in a Pile — Without God
Another report, from the University of Konstanz in 2021, claims that researchers found the genetic imprint of “the surprisingly rapid transition from unicellular to multicellular life.” The rapidity is less surprising, however, after the authors clarify that what was observed was actually evidence of the “first step” towards multicellularity. That first step? Growing in a clump. It turns out there is a mutation in single-celled algae that causes them to clump together.
This is like putting a thousand identical screws in a pile, and saying you’ve accomplished the first step to making a car. That may be true, but the later steps — melting the bolts downs and forging them into more specialized pieces and then assembling them properly — are probably going to be more difficult.
8. Even Darwin Underestimated the Power of Evolution!
A Guardian article from this past July is titled “Biologist Rosemary Grant: ‘Evolution happens much quicker than Darwin thought’.”
Of course, the implication is that, contrary to the claim that Darwin overestimated the power of evolution, he actually underestimated it. But what evidence is Dr. Grant referring to? Well, the average beak and body size of a finch changed as the result of drought, quicker than Darwin estimated. Again, this is proof that evolution is real — but not that it has creative powers.
9. A Whole New… “Species
A related claim made about the finches in the drought is that that they evolved into a new species. This is true, but it may convey the wrong idea. When we talk about the origin of “species” it sounds like we’re referring to the creation of entirely different kinds of creature, with novel body plans, organs, and so forth. However, the most common definition of species, the “biological species concept,” is technical and much broader. Under this definition, any two populations of organisms are considered separate species if they are reproductively isolated; i.e., can’t or won’t reproduce with each other.
In the case of the finches, the drought caused their average beak size to increase from generation to generation, since birds that could crush harder seeds were more likely to survive the drought — and this changed their mating call, eventually making it unrecognizable to non-drought-influenced finches. Thus they won’t mate with each other, and therefore, based on the biological species concept, they are different species.
According to this definition of species, Democrats and Republicans are pretty close to achieving speciation. But that’s hardly an impressive evolutionary feat.
10. “Evolution” by U-Haul
Yet another article announces that a sociological study has found that public attention towards the lionfish (pictured at the top) “is aiding in monitoring its evolution nearly in real time.”
To be exact, it is the range of the lionfish that is evolving — they are migrating to different waters.
(And that probably takes the cake for least impressive example of “evolution in real time.”)
11.Wait, There’s More!
They just keep coming.
Mere hours ago (as of this writing) Georgia Tech put out a research press release announcing “some of the clearest evidence to date of evolution in action.”
The study does indeed show evolution in action. The researchers were observing a species of anole lizards in the wild over the course of several years, when, fortuitously (for the researchers, not the anoles), another species of anole invaded. That meant that the scientists were able to see whether the presence of new competition changed the native species.
And sure enough, it did. The original anoles were driven from their preferred perch locations in the trees, and had to spend more time on the ground. The population size plummeted, and the anoles that had longer legs and were therefore better at running on the flat ground were more likely to survive. As the researchers predicted, after a few years the average leg length in the population was somewhat longer than the average leg length before the invasion. The short-limbed losers had been weeded out by natural selection.
I find this interesting, from an ecological perspective. But, once again, it does not add anything new to the debate about evolution. Nobody doubts that natural selection can change a population. What biologists like Michael Behe doubt is that such selective pressure has limitless potential, to the point of even constructing whole new organs and body plans. That’s where the mathematical difficulties seems to show up: if a new bodily feature requires foresight to construct (because the adaptive function only appears after multiple requisite feature are in place and working in unison), then “evolution by means of national selection and random variation” would be no better at constructing it than pure “random variation” would be.
The anole study, while interesting, has nothing to offer regarding that problem.
If anything, it fits the predictions of the opposing camp. The researchers write that after they observed initial change, they expected to see leg length continue to increase. Yet, so far, it hasn’t. It seems that the anole evolution has hit a bump in the road.
Perhaps, as the researchers are currently predicting, leg length will resume its increase after a few more years. Be that that as it may, I am making the prediction that however long the anoles’ legs become, they will never turn into something more sophisticated than legs.
I am confident in this prediction, because, in spite of all the times evolution has been caught “in action,” no experiment or observation has ever falsified Behe’s key prediction: because natural selection lacks foresight and is not a true designer, it invariably runs out of power before it can construct anything new.
In Conclusion
So, what is the verdict?
As we established, for an observation to constitute a meaningful contribution to the evolution debate, it needs to show evolution’s constructive power, because that is the aspect of evolution that is under debate. Yet, consistently, the observations don’t show that. Instead, they fall into three categories: observations of (1) traits that were already present in the population, (2) traits that were already present in the genome, but were unexpressed, and (3) genuine novelties which, however, did not increase the design sophistication of the organism.
Notes
For example, molecular biologist Michael Behe has (in)famously pointed out that although Darwin’s mechanism of random variation and natural selection can explain a lot, it has trouble explaining exactly what most needs explaining: the kind of intricately complex structures that characterize life. These structures need many components carefully in place before they can confer any survival advantage at all, so the mechanism of natural selection could not have done any good until the very end of the construction process. More recently, Behe has argued that natural selection should be expected to decrease complexity over time, on average, rather than increase it, because (a) loss and damage of sophisticated systems can sometimes confer a survival advantage, and (b) loss and destruction is always vastly more probably than construction.
Grok on X's community notes system.
The Community Notes system on X (formerly Twitter) is a crowdsourced fact-checking and content moderation feature where users can add context to posts that might be misleading, missing context, or in need of further explanation. Here's how it functions:
Eligibility and Participation:
To participate as a contributor, users must have an account that has been active for at least six months and have no recent violations of X's rules. Contributors sign up to rate and write notes, which are public even if the user's account is protected.
Adding and Rating Notes:
Contributors can add notes to any post on X. These notes are then rated by other contributors. The rating process involves evaluating the note's helpfulness, with options like "helpful," "somewhat helpful," or "not helpful." A note becomes visible to the general public if it is rated helpful by enough contributors from diverse perspectives, which helps prevent one-sided or manipulated ratings.
Algorithm and Visibility:
The visibility of these notes doesn't rely on a simple majority vote but on a "bridging-based ranking" algorithm. This algorithm seeks agreement across users with different viewpoints to ensure notes are not biased. Notes require ratings from users with a history of disagreeing to be shown publicly, aiming to reduce manipulation and ensure a balanced approach to fact-checking.
Impact and Updates:
Community Notes have seen updates aimed at speeding up the process of note publication, reducing the time from when a note is written to when it appears on a post, thereby making them more timely in addressing misinformation.
Challenges and Criticisms:
Despite its intentions, the system has faced criticism for being slow, allowin misinformation to spread before notes can be added, and being vulnerable to manipulation by coordinated groups. There's also a concern about the effectiveness of the system in handling highly polarized or new topics where consensus is difficult to achieve.
In summary, Community Notes aim to empower the user community to moderate content by adding context, but its effectiveness can vary, especially with rapidly spreading or highly contentious information.
Wednesday, 8 January 2025
Tuesday, 7 January 2025
Monday, 6 January 2025
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)