Against litigious XVII

 Litigious:Furthermore, when you imply that infallibility is disproven by the existence of scandal or bad clerics, you are repeating the same error as the Donatists of the fourth century. They argued that the Church’s validity depended on the moral purity of her ministers. But this was condemned by the Catholic Church, with the support of St. Augustine, who affirmed that the sacraments and the Church’s teaching authority are valid because of Christ’s institution, not the personal holiness of the minister. Otherwise, no Christian could have certainty of truth, since all men are sinners.

I cited the holy Scriptures as my authority those the scriptures plainly declare that those causing division must be isolated.

1timothy ch.1:19,20NLT"Cling to your faith in Christ, and keep your conscience clear. For some people have deliberately violated their consciences; as a result, their faith has been shipwrecked. 20Hymenaeus and Alexander are two examples. I threw them out and handed them over to Satan so they might learn not to blaspheme God."

Litigious:To suggest that the Catholic Church does not obey Scripture because it does not throw out all its sinful members is to ignore the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24–30). 

Me:It is not a suggestion you manifestly are denying the plainly stated commands of the holy Scriptures, the "field" where the wheat and weeds grow alongside each other in Matthew ch.13:24-30 is the WORLD not the Church.while the brothers can't rid the Church of secret sin. Those who openly defy JEHOVAH'S Law must not be tolerated, certainly they ought not to be permitted to teach from any recognized podium. See Matthew ch.13:38

Litigious:Christ warned that the Church would contain both until the final judgment, and that premature judgment could uproot the good with the bad. This does not mean tolerating error indefinitely but calls for prudence, mercy, and fidelity to God’s timing.

Me:The brothers can't rid the Church of secret sins but open defiance of JEHOVAH’S Law must not be tolerated  did you miss the pictures of the pride flags in your sanctuary ,there absolutely no excuse for that tolerating such fragrant blasphemy in what ought to be a holy space is certainly not prudent,or genuinely merciful,the church must convey JEHOVAH'S Rebuke to those who insists on obstinate defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law that is true mercy 

Revelation ch.3:19NIV"Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent."

Litigious:The Catholic Church has a long and consistent history of confronting heresy and disciplining those who lead others astray. She does this through the very authority structure that many Protestants and groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses reject—a visible, apostolic, and teaching Church with the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 18:17–18). You cannot reasonably cite verses that support ecclesial discipline while rejecting the very Church through which that discipline has been historically and authoritatively carried out.

Me:The Catholic Church has moved from one extreme to the other and never with the Holy Scripture as a guide preferring to heed charismatic humans, rather than any charisma from JEHOVAH. Hence your history bloodstained hypocrisy, now she speaks out of both corners of her mouth she has a conservative faction that wishes to impose it's values at gunpoint through the state and a left wing Caucus who is also bent on hijacking the state for the purpose of imposing its mores on unbelievers and other believers. And yet she permits open defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law in her ranks,so basically it is the opposite our brother Paul's position.

5ch.12,13NIV"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” d"

We discipline those on the inside we leave those on the outside to JEHOVAH.

Litihious:Finally, there is a profound irony in appealing to these verses against false teachers while defending an organization like the Watchtower Society, which has changed numerous doctrinal positions over time—from predictions about the end of the world, to teachings about the “generation” that will not pass away, to medical doctrines like organ transplants and vaccinations. Unlike the Catholic Church, which has preserved the core of apostolic teaching for two thousand years, the Jehovah’s Witnesses offer no consistent witness to unchanging truth, and they explicitly deny Christ’s promise to preserve His Church through the Holy Spirit. This self-defeating position leaves your own tradition vulnerable to the very accusations you try to level against Catholicism.

As I have repeatedly shown you from Scripture JEHOVAH'S Servants have always had an incomplete understanding of prophecy 1Corinthians ch.13:9,Luke ch.24:21

The first century church also had to make adjustments in understanding of the fulfillment of prophecy and other matters, but then as now none of those clarifications were theologically significant, the identity of the most high God as a singular supreme person did not change ,the identity of the only priest as loyal creature whose skinless,faultless loyalty earned him the right to intercede for those putting faith in him and the God who raised him from the dead did not change,the condition of the dead and how it is related to the mechanism of the ransom, nothing of any major theological significance changed

Litigious: In conclusion, the presence of sinful individuals in the Church is not a refutation of her divine institution. Scripture, history, and Christ’s own teaching all bear witness to the reality of a Church that, though composed of fallible men, is led by an infallible God. The Catholic Church exercises correction and discipline according to Scripture, and she does so not through private interpretation, but through

 the authority Christ gave to Peter and his successors. Your argument collapses when one recognizes that it is precisely the Magisterium—the Church’s God-given teaching office—that ensures the authentic and continuous application of the very scriptural principles you invoke.

Me while it is impossible to rid the Church of secret sins,the idea that thus is any excuse to tolerate those living in OPEN and obstinate defiance of JEHOVAH’S Law in the churches ranks to say nothing of allowing them teaching authority is frankly blasphemous.

How CNN stays in the black minus ratings.

 

There are no simple beginnings in biology II.

 Origin of Life: A “Simple” Worm’s Challenge

Denyse O Leary

Recently, we published a piece by Eric Cassell on the fact that even the tiniest known brain, that of the worm C. elegans, is not simple. These facts he sets out raise some very interesting questions.

The worm’s apparent simplicity makes it a favorite lab animal — for example, it was the first animal whose brain was mapped. Researchers have learned that, with fewer than 400 neurons, it can handle both associative and non-associative learning.

Cassell, author of Animal Algorithms (2021), offered a number of remarkable facts about the worm and I thought I’d summarize a few of them again here, along with some questions:

The worm, 1 millimetre in length, consists of only 900 cells. Thus neurons comprise a large proportion of its total cell count.

The worm actually comes in two forms: males which have 385 neurons and hermaphrodites (both sexes) which have 302 neurons. In both cases, it seems that over one-third of all its cells are neurons. But if we compare the worm to the human, we see a considerable difference: The human body has roughly 30 trillion cells and the human brain only 86 billion. Of course, there are neurons distributed throughout the human body. Even so, the proportion of human neurons to other human cells seems much lower.

Perhaps the worm’s brain has roughly the minimum number of neurons any brain must have for simple bodily functions and learning — irrespective of the size of the rest of the body.

Equipped with those 400 neurons, the worm can feed, fast, mate, lay eggs, swim in liquids and crawl on solids. In fact, the worms’ “social lives” can become, well, quite complex:

                  

Cassell writes,

In addition to basic behaviors, C. elegans is also capable of learning, including associative and non-associative learning. A paper published in the Journal of Neurochemistry documented the learning behaviors, including attraction and aversion to salt, temperature, and other substances. What might be surprising to many is that this learning involves both short-term and long-term memory mechanisms, which include regulation of neurotransmitters. 

“Even the tiniest brain,” March 17, 2025

The Origin of Life Question

When even simple life forms are complex, the origin of life question arises: Were there ever life forms that were so simple that they could merely self-assemble, as our official doctrine of the origin of life proposes?

Cassell offers several observations that touch on this question:

                          … even though the brain is tiny, it does not have a simple structure. One might expect the smallest known brain to have a structure that is either relatively uniform or random. An example of a uniform structure is that found in crystals, which form a symmetrical lattice. A random structure would be expected if the positions of the neurons were not specified, but rather develop through a random process. Contrary to being either uniform or random, the brain does have a complex structure that is specified and repeatable. 

“Tiniest brain”

                               Yes, that’s the problem of specified complexity: In a world where nature, left to itself, produces either uniform order or chaos, we find a level of information-rich order that requires an underlying intelligence. And in this case, that information-rich order is alive.

And just when we think we might have finally got down to the truly simple, basic part:

           A second observation is that the brain contains a large number (approximately 100) of different types of neurons, both in terms of design and function. They are not all identical. That also would not be expected for the smallest brain. A third observation is that small neural networks within the brain control various behaviors, such as the touch response network. It is possible that some of these neural networks are irreducibly complex.

“Tiniest brain”

                               Irreducibly complex means that the current structure cannot have arisen via a gradual buildup from simpler to more complex steps. It’s not that simpler versions could not do the job as efficiently; rather, none of them could do it at all.

Cassell quotes a research paper that attempts to account for C. elegans’s unexpectedly busy little brain:

                                                              The mere existence of such structures may actually further underscore the directed evolution to form such clusters, which presumably carry fine functional roles along the neurites. Taken together, local compartmentalized activities, facilitated by the clustered synaptic organizations revealed herein, can enhance computational and memory capacities of a neural network. Such enhancement may be particularly relevant for animals with a compact neural network and with limited computational powers, thereby explaining the evolutionary forces for the emergence of these synaptic organizations. 

Ruach, et al., “The synaptic organization in the Caenorhabditis elegans neural network suggests significant local compartmentalized computations,” PNAS, 2023, Vol. 120, No. 3.

                                                     

So Here We Are

Looking at the very simplest brain known, we find both specified and irreducible complexity. It is all very far removed from the organic elements that are the building blocks of life. And yet we aren’t yet anywhere near the types of brains that think, in the sense that a dog thinks.

However evolution happens, it is beginning to sound far more complex than the sort of theory that made Richard Dawkins feel intellectually fulfilled as an atheist.

The shape of things to come;real life tony stark edition.

 

Man's inhumanity to man is a universal indictment?

 

The fruit of a poisoned tree?

 

More disruption from tesla?

 

Yet another clash of Titans

 

More on why an audit of academia is overdue.

 

God as mind vs. God as machine

 Does Cosmic Fine-Tuning Suggest Theism or Deism?

Evolution News

On a classic episode of ID the Future, host and geologist Casey Luskin continues his conversation with astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez about the many ways Earth’s place in the cosmos is finely tuned for life. In this second half of their conversation, Gonzalez zooms out to discuss the galactic habitable zone and the cosmic habitable age. Luskin says that the combination of exquisite cosmic and local fine-tuning strongly suggests intelligent design, but he asks Gonzalez whether he thinks these telltale clues favor theism over deism? That is, does any of the evidence suggest a cosmic designer who is more than just the clock-maker God of the deists who, in the words of Stephen Dedalus, “remains within or behind or beyond or above his handiwork, invisible, refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails”? Gonzalez answers in the affirmative, but the reasons he offers for this conclusion may surprise you. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

As cloak and dagger as it gets?

 Operation Underworld: Strikes and labor disputes in the eastern shipping ports

Wikipedia

During the early days of World War II, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence suspected that Italian and German agents were entering the United States through New York, and that these facilities were susceptible to sabotage. The loss of SS Normandie in February 1942, especially, raised fears and suspicions in the Navy about possible sabotage in the Eastern ports. A Navy Intelligence Unit, B3, assigned more than a hundred agents to investigate possible Benito Mussolini supporters within the predominantly Italian-American fisherman and dockworker population on the waterfront. Their efforts were fruitless, as the dockworkers and fishermen in the Italian Mafia-controlled waterfront were tight-lipped and distant to strangers.[1] The Navy contacted Meyer Lansky, a known associate of Salvatore C. Luciano and one of the top non-Italian associates of the Mafia,[2] about a deal with the Mafia boss Luciano. Luciano, also known as Lucky Luciano, was one of the highest-ranking Mafia both in Italy and the US and was serving a 30 to 50 years sentence for compulsory prostitution in the Clinton Prison.[3] To facilitate the negotiations, the State of New York moved Luciano from the Clinton prison to Great Meadow Correctional Facility, which is much closer to New York City.[4][5]

The State of New York, Luciano and the Navy struck a deal in which Luciano guaranteed full assistance of his organization in providing intelligence to the Navy. In addition, Luciano associate Albert Anastasia—who controlled the docks and ran Murder, Inc.—allegedly guaranteed no dockworker strikes throughout the war. In return, the State of New York agreed to commute Luciano's sentence.[6] Luciano's actual influence is uncertain, but the authorities did note that the dockworker strikes stopped after the deal was reached with Luciano.[7]

In the summer of 1945, Luciano petitioned the State of New York for executive clemency, citing his assistance to the Navy. Naval authorities, embarrassed that they had to recruit organized-crime to help in their war effort, declined to confirm Luciano's claim. However, the Manhattan District Attorney's office validated the facts and the state parole board unanimously agreed to recommend to the governor that Luciano be released and deported immediately.[8] On January 4, 1946, Governor Thomas E. Dewey, the former prosecutor who placed Luciano into prison, commuted Lucky Luciano's sentence on the condition that he did not resist deportation to Italy.[9] Dewey stated, “Upon the entry of the United States into the war, Luciano’s aid was sought by the Armed Services in inducing others to provide information concerning possible enemy attack. It appears that he cooperated in such effort, although the actual value of the information procured is not clear.”[10][7] Luciano was deported to his homeland Italy on February 9, 1946.[11] There was a media hype of Luciano's role after his deportation. The syndicated columnist and radio broadcaster Walter Winchell even reported in 1947 that Luciano would receive the Medal of Honor for his secret services.[12]

Tesla is about to become the Ford model T of EVs?

 

The king of Titans continues to beat down his rivals.

 

More on China inc.'s EV juggernaut.

 

On china's EV Juggernaut.

 

Catholic style new light.

1.Yes, during the Iconoclast Controversy in the 8th century, some popes, including Gregory III and the Lateran Council, condemned the iconoclastic emperors who banned the veneration of images, while others, like Leo III, supported the ban. 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

The Iconoclast Controversy:

In the 8th century, the Byzantine emperors Leo III and Constantine V, along with some bishops, opposed the veneration of religious images (icons), arguing it was a form of idolatry. 

Pope Gregory III's Response:

Pope Gregory III, in 731, convened a local synod in Rome to affirm the veneration of icons and excommunicated those who opposed them. 

Constantine V's Council:

Constantine V, seeking formal church endorsement for the ban on icons, convened a council at Hieria near Constantinople in 754, which supported the iconoclastic position. 

The Lateran Council:

The West, however, did not support the iconoclastic emperors. The Lateran Council in 767 condemned the Council of Hieria and reaffirmed the teaching of the earlier Synod of Rome. 

Pope John VIII:

Pope John VIII later sent a better translation of the Acts of the council, which helped to remove misunderstandings. 

The Second Council of Nicaea:

In 787, Empress Irene called the Second Council of Nicaea to address the image controversy, which affirmed the veneration of images. 

Later Iconoclast Ideas:

Even after the Second Council of Nicaea, there were isolated cases of iconoclasm in the West, such as Bishop Claudius of Turin in 824, who destroyed images and crosses in his diocese. 

Pope Alexander II:

As late as the eleventh century, Bishop Jocelin of Bordeaux still held iconoclast ideas for which he was severely reprimanded by Pope Alexander II. 

2.The controversy surrounding the Latin Mass, specifically the Tridentine or Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), stems from differing views on its role and significance within the Catholic Church, with some viewing it as a vital link to tradition and others as a source of division and resistance to Vatican II reforms. 

Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of the controversy:

The TLM:

This is the older form of the Roman Rite liturgy, celebrated in Latin, and differs from the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) introduced after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). 

Vatican II and its Reforms:

The council aimed to modernize the church, including the liturgy, leading to the use of vernacular languages and a more active role for the congregation in Mass. 

The Rise of the TLM:

After Vatican II, some Catholics, particularly those who were resistant to the reforms, embraced the TLM, viewing it as a more authentic and traditional form of worship. 

Pope Francis's Restrictions:

In 2021, Pope Francis issued Traditionis Custodes, a document that placed restrictions on the celebration of the TLM, requiring bishops to seek Vatican approval for its celebration and forbidding the establishment of new TLM communities. 

Arguments for the TLM:

Supporters of the TLM argue that it provides a sense of continuity with the Church's past, fosters reverence and a deeper connection to tradition, and offers a more spiritual experience. 

Arguments Against the TLM:

Critics argue that the TLM can foster division within the Church, is associated with resistance to Vatican II reforms, and can lead to a passive role for the congregation in worship. 

Pope Francis's Justification:

Pope Francis has stated that his restrictions are intended to preserve church unity and prevent the TLM from being used as a tool for division and opposition to the Church's reforms. 

Ongoing Debate:

The controversy continues, with proponents of the TLM pushing for greater access and freedom to celebrate the liturgy, while those who oppose it seek to ensure that the Church's focus remains on the reforms of Vatican II. 

Examples of opposition:

Some Catholics have criticized Pope Francis's decision, with some arguing that the revival of the Latin Mass in recent years has been key to rejuvenating the faith of younger Catholics. 

Examples of support:

Some Catholics have welcomed the news, with some arguing that the new restrictions are necessary to preserve church unity. 

3.The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, affirming Mary's freedom from original sin from the moment of her conception, evolved through centuries of theological debate and devotion, culminating in its formal declaration as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854. 

Here's a more detailed look at its development:

Early Christian Thought:

While not explicitly defined, the belief in Mary's holiness and special grace was present in early Christian thought. 

Medieval Debates:

The idea of Mary's immaculate conception gained traction during the medieval period, with prominent theologians like John Duns Scotus defending it. 

Franciscan Influence:

The Franciscan order played a key role in promoting the doctrine, with figures like Duns Scotus arguing that Mary's immaculate conception was a result of her special role in salvation history. 

Opposition and Counterarguments:

Not everyone embraced the idea. Saint Thomas Aquinas, for example, initially opposed it, arguing that Mary needed to be redeemed by Christ, just like everyone else. 

Rise of Devotion:

Despite the theological debates, devotion to Mary as the "Immaculate Conception" grew, leading to the widespread celebration of the feast of the Immaculate Conception. 

Formal Dogmatic Definition:

In 1854, Pope Pius IX, responding to a widespread desire within the Church, formally defined the Immaculate Conception as a dogma in the papal bull "Ineffabilis Deus," declaring it a revealed truth to be believed by all Catholics. 

Significance of the Definition:

The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the desire to inspire devotion to the Blessed Virgin and to clarify a belief that was already widely held. 

Lourdes Apparition:

The apparition of Mary to Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes in 1858, where Mary identified herself as "the Immaculate Conception," further strengthened the belief in the doctrine. 

4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_clergy_in_the_Catholic_Church#:~:text=While%20a%20Los%20Angeles%20Times,run%20as%20high%20as%2050%25.

Studies find it difficult to quantify specific percentages of Roman Catholic priests who have a homosexual orientation (either openly gay or closeted) in the United States.[4] Nevertheless, several studies suggest that the incidence of homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood is much higher than in the general population as a whole.[20][21] While a Los Angeles Times survey of US priests find that 15% say they are completely or mostly homosexual, estimates of homosexual priests run as high as 50%.[4][22]

Studies by James Wolf and by Richard Sipe from the early 1990s suggest that the percentage of priests in the Catholic Church who admitted to being gay or were in homosexual relationships was well above the national average for the country.[23] Elizabeth Stuart, a former convener of the Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement claimed, "It has been estimated that at least 33 percent of all priests in the RC Church in the United States are homosexual."[24]

The John Jay Report published in 2004 suggested that "homosexual men entered the seminaries in noticeable numbers from the late 1970s through the 1980s".[25]

Another report suggested that from the mid-1980s onwards, Catholic priests in the US were dying from AIDS-related illnesses at a rate four times higher than that of the general population, with most of the cases contracted through gay sex, and the cause often concealed on their death certificates.[citation needed] A follow-up study the next year[as of?] by the Kansas City Star found the AIDS-related death rate among priests was "more than six times" the rate among the general population in the 14 states studied. The report gained widespread coverage in the media, but the study was criticized as being unrepresentative and having "little, if any, real value".[26] Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of the Archdiocese of Detroit, has suggested that this was because, "Gay priests and heterosexual priests didn't know how to handle their sexuality, their sexual drive. And so they would handle it in ways that were not healthy." Additionally, the report suggested that some priests and behavioral experts believed the Church had "scared priests into silence by treating homosexual acts as an abomination and the breaking of celibacy vows as shameful".[27] Gumbleton has gone on to argue that the Church should openly ordain gay men.[28]

A 2002 Los Angeles Times nationwide poll of 1,854 priests (responding) reported that:

9% of priests identified themselves as gay, and

6% identified themselves as "somewhere in between but more on the homosexual side".

Asked if a "homosexual subculture" (defined as a "definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary") existed in their diocese or religious order:

17% of the priests said "definitely", and

27% said "probably";

53% of the priests who were ordained in the years 1982–2002 affirmed such a subculture existed in the seminary when they attended.[22]

Shortly after the poll was published, the Vatican ordered an Apostolic visitor to examine American seminaries. The visitation began in 2005, and the final report issued in 2008. The report spoke about "difficulties in the area of morality [...] Usually, but not exclusively, this meant homosexual behavior." Steps were subsequently taken to deal with the issue, including correcting a "laxity of discipline".[29]

Archbishop Justifies LGBT Flags on Coffins in Mexican Cathedral ...

Dudelympics?

 

Return to the forever schoolyard

 

The king of titans wins blunderfully?

 

It is irreducible complexity all the way down?

 Irreducible Complexity Nested Within Irreducible Complexity: The Case of Chromosome Condensation

Jonathan McLatchie

In previous articles, I have described the molecular marvel that is mitotic cell division, with a view towards imparting to readers a sense of the engineering prowess and, indeed, genius behind this phenomenal process. Here, I will zoom in on the process of chromosome condensation, which occurs during prophase. The compaction of chromatin to form the recognizable mitotic chromosome structures would serve little value until the evolution of the machinery for facilitating mitotic segregation. And yet, it is essential for mitotic division to proceed — that is, the process of chromosome condensation resides within an irreducibly complex system. As we shall see, however, the process of chromosome condensation itself exhibits irreducible complexity. Thus, this represents an example of irreducible complexity that is nested within a larger irreducibly complex apparatus. It is, therefore, difficult to envision such a process coming together through a blind process, without foresight of the target. This aspect of cell division is best explained by teleology – i.e., conscious design.

What Happens During Prophase? The Big Picture

During prophase, the replicated chromosomes (each consisting of two sister chromatids) condense and are recognizable under the microscope. This process of condensation reduces the length of a typical interphase chromosome by approximately ten-fold and gene expression shuts down. The two sister chromatids of each mitotic chromosome have been disentangled from one another and are joined at the centromere. This facilitates the later separation of the sister chromatids as they are segregated between the two daughter cells. The compaction also protects the fragile DNA molecules during this process. Each pair of sister chromatids are genetically identical to one another. Outside of the cell nucleus, the mitotic spindle (which is made up of microtubules) begins to form between the two centrosomes, which have already duplicated during S and G2 phases of the cell cycle. The mitotic spindle will be responsible later (during anaphase) for facilitating the separation of the two sister chromatids.

Phosphorylation of Histone H3

Phosphorylation of histone H3, by Aurora B kinase, has been shown to play an important role in the condensation of mitotic chromosomes — in particular, at residues Ser10 and Ser28 (for short, H3S10 and H3S28).1,2 This disrupts electrostatic interactions between the DNA and histones, loosening chromatin structure and making it more accessible for the condensin complexes to bind. Phosphorylation of H3S10 and H3S28 also promotes the binding of topoisomerase IIα and the chromosomal passenger complex (CPC). These phosphorylations of Histone 3 are essential for chromosome condensation and segregation. Without them, the result would be defective chromosome condensation and, consequently, impaired segregation of the genetic material. In fact, deregulation of these epigenetic histone markings has been linked to cancer.3Moreover, when Aurora B kinase is depleted using RNA interference, the localization of the CPC to centromeres is impaired, disrupting mitotic progression.4

Chromatin Condensation

Electron micrograph images reveal that each chromatid is arranged into loops of chromatin, which emanate from a central scaffolding. Condensins work to coil the two DNA molecules, using the energy from ATP hydrolysis.5 The result is the two sister chromatids associated with the mitotic chromosome.

Condensin proteins are made up of five constituent parts.6 Among those are the SMC (Structural Maintenance of Chromosomes) proteins, SMC2 and SMC4 (which have ATPase activity). The SMC proteins have coiled-coil domains (i.e., long, flexible arms that fold back on themselves-creating a V-shaped structure), a hinge domain (facilitating the dimerization of the two SMC proteins), and head domains (possessing ATP-binding and ATPase sites, which energizes condensing activity). There are also three non-SMC subunits, which associate with specific regions of DNA and assist in regulating the activity of the condensins.

Condensin complexes load onto the chromatin in a stepwise manner, directed by the non-SMC subunits, which create loops in the DNA (energized by their ATPase activity). These loops are subsequently condensed into mitotic chromosomes. The condensin proteins are critical for cell division to occur. In their absence, the consequence would be chromosomal disorganization, as well as great difficulty in achieving proper segregation during mitosis. This is borne out by condensin knockout studies. For example, one paper reported that “CAP-D3 (condensin II) knockout results in masses of chromatin-containing anaphase bridges. CAP-H (condensin I)-knockout anaphases have a more subtle defect, with chromatids showing fine chromatin fibres that are associated with failure of cytokinesis and cell death.”7 The authors conclude that “condensin II alone can support mitotic chromosome rigidity, whereas condensin I is clearly not able to do so.” Though having both condensin I and II is apparently unnecessary, it is surely the case that having at least condensin II is essential for successful condensation to achieve the mitotic chromosome.

The Chromosome Passenger Complex

The Chromosome Passenger Complex (CPC) is a complex involving four proteins, which are essential to ensuring proper chromosome condensation, alignment, and segregation. The four main components are Aurora B kinase, Survivin, Borealin, and INCENP.8,9

As mentioned previously, Aurora B kinase plays a crucial role in phosphorylating histone H3.10 Aurora B kinase also phosphorylates Heterochromatin Protein 1 (HP1), a protein that normally maintains chromatin in its relaxed interphase state. Inhibitory phosphorylation of this protein promotes chromosome condensation.11Aurora B kinase is also responsible for phosphorylating and activating subunits of condensin.12 When Aurora B is depleted, condensin activity is significantly impaired — for example, in Xenopus (clawed frogs, pictured at the top) egg extracts, removal of Aurora B has been shown to result in a 50 percent decrease in condensin I association with chromosomes.13

Survivin is responsible for targeting the CPC to chromatin by associating with histone modifications, and thereby assisting with the positioning of Aurora B kinase.14,15,16 Depletion of survivin has been shown to result in “significant reduction of endogenous phosphorylated histone H3 and mislocalization of Aurora-B.”17

The CPC is itself stabilized at chromosomes by Borealin, ensuring the continued activity of Aurora B kinase and the efficient recruitment of condensins.18 When Borealin is knocked-out by RNA interference, mitotic progression is delayed and the consequence is “kinetochore-spindle misattachments and an increase in bipolar spindles associated with ectopic asters.”19

The Inner Centromere Protein (INCENP) serves a scaffolding role, and activates Aurora B kinase so that it can phosphorylate substrates (in particular, histones, condensins, and Topoisomerase IIα).20

Topoisomerase IIα

Topoisomerase IIα is crucial for successful mitotic division. In its absence, the typical result is chromosomal mis-segregation, aneuploidy, and cell death. In particular, Topoisomerase IIα is essential for resolving chromosomal catenations. Catenation refers to the physical intertwining of the sister chromatids following DNA replication (resulting from the DNA becoming topologically linked during copying). Failure to disentangle the sister chromatids can result in their improper separation during anaphase, the consequence of which is mis-segregation and aneuploidy. Catenation can also result in the chromatids being subject to tensile stress during the process of mitosis — this can result in chromosomal breakage. When Topoisomerase IIα has been experimentally deleted prior to mitosis, the effect is a failure of chromatin condensation, and exit of the cell from mitosis without chromosome segregation having occurred.21 In addition, it was found that “removal of TOP2A from cells arrested in prometaphase or metaphase cause dramatic loss of compacted mitotic chromosome structure,” indicating that Topoisomerase IIα is “crucial for maintenance of mitotic chromosomes.”22

How does Topoisomerase IIα resolve catenation to allow mitosis to proceed successfully?23,24,25 First, it recognizes and binds to catenated regions where the sister chromatids are entangled. Two DNA-binding domains recognize two DNA segments — i.e., the G and T segments (Gate and Transport Segments respectively). The G-segment is on the DNA duplex that will be cleaved, while the T-segment is on the duplex that will be passed through the break. Using the energy from ATP hydrolysis, Topoisomerase IIα induces a conformational change that places the G-segment within its active site. Both strands of the G-segment are then cleaved, and the T-segment is passed through the break. The result of this process is the untangling of the interlinked chromatids. Topoisomerase IIα then relegates the broken G-segment, and the enzyme is released from DNA (energized by another round of ATP hydrolysis), and the enzyme is reset.

The function of Topoisomerase enzymes is, of course, not limited to resolving catenation in preparation for mitosis — they are also important for alleviating supercoils during DNA replication. However, following genome duplication, some catenation remains, especially in centromeric and heterochromatic regions — this must be fully resolved in advance of mitosis (otherwise, it will hinder proper chromosome segregation). To ensure that this happens, Topoisomerase IIα is phosphorylated by Cyclin-dependent kinase (Cdk) 1 and Aurora B kinase, enhancing its activity in late G2/M phase for the task of catenation-resolution that is needed for chromosome condensation.26,27

There is even a checkpoint in late G2 that determines that catenation has been completely resolved.28 If topological stress is detected, Ataxia Telangiectasia and Rad3-Related kinase (ATR) are recruited to chromatin. This phosphorylates Checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1), which in turn phosphorylates Cdc25C, a phosphatase that activates Cdk1. This results in the inhibition of Cdc25C, preventing activation of Cdk1, thereby delaying entry of the cell into mitosis. In fact, experimental knockout of ATR in mice has been shown to result in early embryonic lethality due to massive apoptosis and mitotic defects, demonstrating the essential role of ATR in mitotic fidelity.29,30 A similar study also revealed that Chk1 deletion in mice results in embryonic lethality.31

Intelligent Design

The process of chromosomal condensation is absolutely essential to successful mitotic cell division — that is to say, it is a part of a larger irreducibly complex system. Moreover, the highly condensed mitotic chromosome structures (with sister chromatids joined at the centromere) do not serve a purpose apart from in the context of mitosis. And yet, as we have seen, various components are themselves indispensable for effective chromosome condensation. Thus, we have an example of an irreducibly complex apparatus that is nested within a larger irreducibly complex system. It is highly implausible that such a wonder of engineering arose by means of an unguided evolutionary process. It is, in my judgment, far better explained on the hypo

Notes

.Sawicka A, Seiser C. Sensing core histone phosphorylation – a matter of perfect timing. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014 Aug;1839(8):711-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2014.04.013. Epub 2014 Apr 18. PMID: 24747175; PMCID: PMC4103482.

Wilkins BJ, Rall NA, Ostwal Y, Kruitwagen T, Hiragami-Hamada K, Winkler M, Barral Y, Fischle W, Neumann H. A cascade of histone modifications induces chromatin condensation in mitosis. Science. 2014 Jan 3;343(6166):77-80. doi: 10.1126/science.1244508. PMID: 24385627.

Komar D, Juszczynski P. Rebelled epigenome: histone H3S10 phosphorylation and H3S10 kinases in cancer biology and therapy. Clin Epigenetics. 2020 Oct 14;12(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s13148-020-00941-2. PMID: 33054831; PMCID: PMC7556946.

Honda R, Körner R, Nigg EA. Exploring the functional interactions between Aurora B, INCENP, and survivin in mitosis. Mol Biol Cell. 2003 Aug;14(8):3325-41. doi: 10.1091/mbc.e02-11-0769. Epub 2003 May 29. PMID: 12925766; PMCID: PMC181570.

Paul MR, Hochwagen A, Ercan S. Condensin action and compaction. Curr Genet. 2019 Apr;65(2):407-415. doi: 10.1007/s00294-018-0899-4. Epub 2018 Oct 25. PMID: 30361853; PMCID: PMC6421088.

Hirano T. Condensin-Based Chromosome Organization from Bacteria to Vertebrates. Cell. 2016 Feb 25;164(5):847-57. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.01.033. PMID: 26919425.

Green LC, Kalitsis P, Chang TM, Cipetic M, Kim JH, Marshall O, Turnbull L, Whitchurch CB, Vagnarelli P, Samejima K, Earnshaw WC, Choo KH, Hudson DF. Contrasting roles of condensin I and condensin II in mitotic chromosome formation. J Cell Sci. 2012 Mar 15;125(Pt 6):1591-604. doi: 10.1242/jcs.097790. Epub 2012 Feb 17. PMID: 22344259; PMCID: PMC3336382..Carmena M, Wheelock M, Funabiki H, Earnshaw WC. The chromosomal passenger complex (CPC): from easy rider to the godfather of mitosis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2012 Dec;13(12):789-803. doi: 10.1038/nrm3474. PMID: 23175282; PMCID: PMC3729939.

Tan L, Kapoor TM. Examining the dynamics of chromosomal passenger complex (CPC)-dependent phosphorylation during cell division. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Oct 4;108(40):16675-80. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1106748108. Epub 2011 Sep 26. PMID: 21949386; PMCID: PMC3189036.

10.Hirota T, Lipp JJ, Toh BH, Peters JM. Histone H3 serine 10 phosphorylation by Aurora B causes HP1 dissociation from heterochromatin. Nature. 2005 Dec 22;438(7071):1176-80. doi: 10.1038/nature04254. Epub 2005 Oct 12. PMID: 16222244.

Williams MM, Mathison AJ, Christensen T, Greipp PT, Knutson DL, Klee EW, Zimmermann MT, Iovanna J, Lomberk GA, Urrutia RA. Aurora kinase B-phosphorylated HP1α functions in chromosomal instability. Cell Cycle. 2019 Jun;18(12):1407-1421. doi: 10.1080/15384101.2019.1618126. Epub 2019 May 26. PMID: 31130069; PMCID: PMC6592258.

Lipp JJ, Hirota T, Poser I, Peters JM. Aurora B controls the association of condensin I but not condensin II with mitotic chromosomes. J Cell Sci. 2007 Apr 1;120(Pt 7):1245-55. doi: 10.1242/jcs.03425. Epub 2007 Mar 13. PMID: 17356064.

Takemoto A, Murayama A, Katano M, Urano T, Furukawa K, Yokoyama S, Yanagisawa J, Hanaoka F, Kimura K. Analysis of the role of Aurora B on the chromosomal targeting of condensin I. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(7):2403-12. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm157. Epub 2007 Mar 28. PMID: 17392339; PMCID: PMC1874644.

15.Wheatley SP, Altieri DC. Survivin at a glance. J Cell Sci. 2019 Apr 4;132(7):jcs223826. doi: 10.1242/jcs.223826. PMID: 30948431; PMCID: PMC6467487.

Li F, Ling X. Survivin study: an update of “what is the next wave”? J Cell Physiol. 2006 Sep;208(3):476-86. doi: 10.1002/jcp.20634. PMID: 16557517; PMCID: PMC2821201.

Garg H, Suri P, Gupta JC, Talwar GP, Dubey S. Survivin: a unique target for tumor therapy. Cancer Cell Int. 2016 Jun 23;16:49. doi: 10.1186/s12935-016-0326-1. PMID: 27340370; PMCID: PMC4917988.

Chen J, Jin S, Tahir SK, Zhang H, Liu X, Sarthy AV, McGonigal TP, Liu Z, Rosenberg SH, Ng SC. Survivin enhances Aurora-B kinase activity and localizes Aurora-B in human cells. J Biol Chem. 2003 Jan 3;278(1):486-90. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M211119200. Epub 2002 Nov 4. PMID: 12419797.

Gassmann R, Carvalho A, Henzing AJ, Ruchaud S, Hudson DF, Honda R, Nigg EA, Gerloff DL, Earnshaw WC. Borealin: a novel chromosomal passenger required for stability of the bipolar mitotic spindle. J Cell Biol. 2004 Jul 19;166(2):179-91. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200404001. Epub 2004 Jul 12. PMID: 15249581; PMCID: PMC2172304.

Ibid.

Samejima K, Platani M, Wolny M, Ogawa H, Vargiu G, Knight PJ, Peckham M, Earnshaw WC. The Inner Centromere Protein (INCENP) Coil Is a Single α-Helix (SAH) Domain That Binds Directly to Microtubules and Is Important for Chromosome Passenger Complex (CPC) Localization and Function in Mitosis. J Biol Chem. 2015 Aug 28;290(35):21460-72. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M115.645317. Epub 2015 Jul 14. PMID: 26175154; PMCID: PMC4571873.

Nielsen CF, Zhang T, Barisic M, Kalitsis P, Hudson DF. Topoisomerase IIα is essential for maintenance of mitotic chromosome structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jun 2;117(22):12131-12142. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2001760117. Epub 2020 May 15. PMID: 32414923; PMCID: PMC7275761.

Ibid.

Roca J, Wang JC. DNA transport by a type II DNA topoisomerase: evidence in favor of a two-gate mechanism. Cell. 1994 May 20;77(4):609-16. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(94)90222-4. PMID: 8187179.

Berger JM, Gamblin SJ, Harrison SC, Wang JC. Structure and mechanism of DNA topoisomerase II. Nature. 1996 Jan 18;379(6562):225-32. doi: 10.1038/379225a0. Erratum in: Nature 1996 Mar 14;380(6570):179. PMID: 8538787.

Champoux JJ. DNA topoisomerases: structure, function, and mechanism. Annu Rev Biochem. 2001;70:369-413. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.70.1.369. PMID: 11395412.

Morrison C, Henzing AJ, Jensen ON, Osheroff N, Dodson H, Kandels-Lewis SE, Adams RR, Earnshaw WC. Proteomic analysis of human metaphase chromosomes reveals topoisomerase II alpha as an Aurora B substrate. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Dec 1;30(23):5318-27. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkf665. PMID: 12466558; PMCID: PMC137976.

Escargueil AE, Larsen AK. Mitosis-specific MPM-2 phosphorylation of DNA topoisomerase IIalpha is regulated directly by protein phosphatase 2A. Biochem J. 2007 Apr 15;403(2):235-42. doi: 10.1042/BJ20061460. PMID: 17212588; PMCID: PMC1874246.

Deming PB, Cistulli CA, Zhao H, Graves PR, Piwnica-Worms H, Paules RS, Downes CS, Kaufmann WK. The human decatenation checkpoint. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Oct 9;98(21):12044-9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.221430898. Epub 2001 Oct 2. PMID: 11593014; PMCID: PMC59764.

Brown EJ, Baltimore D. ATR disruption leads to chromosomal fragmentation and early embryonic lethality. Genes Dev. 2000 Feb 15;14(4):397-402. PMID: 10691732; PMCID: PMC316378.

Brown EJ, Baltimore D. Essential and dispensable roles of ATR in cell cycle arrest and genome maintenance. Genes Dev. 2003 Mar 1;17(5):615-28. doi: 10.1101/gad.1067403. PMID: 12629044; PMCID: PMC196009.

Liu Q, Guntuku S, Cui XS, Matsuoka S, Cortez D, Tamai K, Luo G, Carattini-Rivera S, DeMayo F, Bradley A, Donehower LA, Elledge SJ. Chk1 is an essential kinase that is regulated by Atr and required for the G(2)/M DNA damage checkpoint. Genes Dev. 2000 Jun 15;14(12):1448-59. PMID: 10859164; PMCID: PMC316686.

The serpent in physics' Eden?

 

Chasing phantoms?

 

More memories of an iconoclast.

 Humor, Humility, and a Treasured Friend and Colleague: Sternberg Remembers Jonathan Wells

Andrew McDiarmid

On a new episode of ID the Future, I continue a series of interviews celebrating the life and legacy of Dr. Jonathan Wells, our close colleague and friend who passed away in 2024 at the age of 82 years old. Dr. Wells was one of the first Fellows of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and made significant contributions to science and to arguments for intelligent design. Today, evolutionary biologist Dr. Richard Sternberg shares personal anecdotes and insights into Dr. Wells’s character, his contributions to biology and epigenetics, and the profound impact he had on those around him.

One of the character traits Sternberg most admired in Wells was his humility, which formed a backdrop for their many conversations. Wells would occasionally bring up lessons he had learned about hubris from Faust, the famous tragic play by German polymath Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. “The more you know, the more you realize that you know too little and there’s always some other horizon,” says Sternberg, encapsulating his friend’s view. Wells’s commitment to intellectual honesty served him well in his career as a biologist and in the debate over evolution.

Dr. Sternberg also highlights Dr. Wells’s deep concern for the truth. “He saw how ideology could be used to not only bend the truth, but also to just subvert it,” explains Sternberg. Wells committed himself early in his career to following the evidence wherever it led, a decision that led to a brave and relentless search for scientific truth. And the perfect compliment to that bravery and humility? Wells’s sense of humor. Sternberg gives examples. The episode concludes with reflections on Dr. Wells’s lasting influence on the future of intelligent design. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

We are living in the jetsons' timeline?

 

Marcel-Paul Schützenberger: Darwin skeptic.

 

Marcel-Paul Schützenberger

Introduction 

 

Until his death, the mathematician and doctor of medicine Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (1920-1996) was Professor of the Faculty of Sciences at the University of Paris and a member of the Academy of Sciences. [See "From the Editors" for additional biographical information.] In 1966, Schützenberger participated in the Wistar Symposium on mathematical objections to neo-Darwinism. His arguments were subtle and often misunderstood by biologists. Darwin's theory, he observed, and the interpretation of biological systems as formal objects, were at odds insofar as randomness is known to degrade meaning in formal contexts. But Schützenberger also argued that Darwin's theory logically required some active principle of coordination between the typographic space of the informational macromolecules (DNA and RNA) and the organic space of living creatures themselves -- which Darwin's theory does not provide. In this January 1996 interview with the French science monthly La Recherche, here published in English for the first time, he pursued these themes anew, finding inspiration for his ideas both in the mathematical ideas that he had pioneered and in the speculative tradition of French biological thought that stretched from Georges Cuvier to Lucien Cuenot. M.P. Schützenberger was a man of universal curiosity and great wit; throughout his life, he was both joyful and unafraid. The culture that he so brilliantly represented disappears with him, of course. It was his finest invention and it now belongs to the inventory of remembered things.

Q: What is your definition of Darwinism?

S: The most current, of course, a position generically embodied, for example, by Richard Dawkins. The essential idea is well-known. Evolution, Darwinists argue, is explained by the double action of chance mutations and natural selection. The general doctrine embodies two mutually contradictory schools -- gradualists, on the one hand, saltationists, on the other. Gradualists insist that evolution proceeds by means of small successive changes; saltationists that it proceeds by jumps. Richard Dawkins has come to champion radical gradualism; Stephen Jay Gould, a no less radical version of saltationism.

Q: You are known as a mathematician rather than a specialist in evolutionary biology...

S: Biology is, of course, not my specialty. The participation of mathemeticians in the overall assessment of evolutionary thought has been encouraged by the biologists themselves, if only because they presented such an irresistible target. Richard Dawkins, for example, has been fatally attracted to arguments that would appear to hinge on concepts drawn from mathematics and from the computer sciences, the technical stuff imposed on innocent readers with all of his comic authority. Mathematicians are, in any case, epistemological zealots. It is normal for them to bring their critical scruples to the foundations of other disciplines. And finally, it is worth observing that the great turbid wave of cybernetics has carried mathematicians from their normal mid-ocean haunts to the far shores of evolutionary biology. There up ahead, Rene Thom and Ilya Prigogine may be observed paddling sedately toward dry land, members of the Santa Fe Institute thrashing in their wake. Stuart Kauffman is among them. An interesting case, a physician half in love with mathematical logic, burdened now and forever by having received a Papal Kiss from Murray Gell-Mann. This ecumenical movement has endeavored to apply the concepts of mathematics to the fundamental problems of evolution -- the interpretation of functional complexity, for example.

Q: What do you mean by functional complexity?

S: It is impossible to grasp the phenomenon of life without that concept, the two words each expressing a crucial and essential idea. The laboratory biologists' normal and unforced vernacular is almost always couched in functional terms: the function of an eye, the function of an enzyme, or a ribosome, or the fruit fly's antennae -- their function; the concept by which such language is animated is one perfectly adapted to reality. Physiologists see this better than anyone else. Within their world, everything is a matter of function, the various systems that they study -- circulatory, digestive, excretory, and the like -- all characterized in simple, ineliminable functional terms. At the level of molecular biology, functionality may seem to pose certain conceptual problems, perhaps because the very notion of an organ has disappeared when biological relationships are specified in biochemical terms; but appearances are misleading, certain functions remaining even in the absence of an organ or organ systems. Complexity is also a crucial concept. Even among unicellular organisms, the mechanisms involved in the separation and fusion of chromosomes during mitosis and meiosis are processes of unbelieveable complexity and subtlety. Organisms present themselves to us as a complex ensemble of functional interrelationships. If one is going to explain their evolution, one must at the same time explain their functionality and their complexity.

Q: What is it that makes functional complexity so difficult to comprehend?

S: The evolution of living creatures appears to require an essential ingredient, a specific form of organization. Whatever it is, it lies beyond anything that our present knowledge of physics or chemistry might suggest; it is a property upon which formal logic sheds absolutely no light. Whether gradualists or saltationists, Darwinians have too simple a conception of biology, rather like a locksmith improbably convinced that his handful of keys will open any lock. Darwinians, for example, tend to think of the gene rather as if it were the expression of a simple command: do this, get that done, drop that side chain. Walter Gehring's work on the regulatory genes controlling the development of the insect eye reflects this conception. The relevant genes may well function this way, but the story on this level is surely incomplete, and Darwinian theory is not apt to fill in the pieces.

Q: You claim that biologists think of a gene as a command. Could you be more specific?

S: Schematically, a gene is like a unit of information. It has simple binary properties. When active, it is an elementary information-theoretic unit, the cascade of gene instructions resembling the cascade involved in specifying a recipe. Now let us return to the example of the eye. Darwinists imagine that it requires what? A thousand or two thousand genes to assemble an eye, the specification of the organ thus requiring one or two thousand units of information? This is absurd! Suppose that a European firm proposes to manufacture an entirely new household appliance in a Southeast Asian factory. And suppose that for commercial reasons, the firm does not wish to communicate to the factory any details of the appliance's function -- how it works, what purposes it will serve. With only a few thousand bits of information, the factory is not going to proceed very far or very fast. A few thousand bits of information, after all, yields only a single paragraph of text. The appliance in question is bound to be vastly simpler than the eye; charged with its manufacture, the factory will yet need to know the significance of the operations to which they have committed themselves in engaging their machinery. This can be achieved only if they already have some sense of the object's nature before they undertake to manufacture it. A considerable body of knowledge, held in common between the European firm and its Asian factory, is necessary before manufacturing instructions may be executed.

Q: Would you argue that the genome does not contain the requisite information for explaining organisms?

S:Not according to the understanding of the genome we now possess. The biological properties invoked by biologists are in this respect quite insufficient; while biologists may understand that a gene triggers the production of a particular protein, that knowledge -- that kind of knowledge -- does not allow them to comprehend how one or two thousand genes suffice to direct the course of embryonic development.

Q: You are going to be accused of preformationism...

S: And of many other crimes. My position is nevertheless strictly a rational one. I've formulated a problem that appears significant to me: how is it that with so few elementary instructions, the materials of life can fabricate objects that are so marvelously complicated and efficient? This property with which they are endowed -- just what is its nature? Nothing within our actual knowledge of physics and chemistry allows us intellectually to grasp it. If one starts from an evolutionary point of view, it must be acknowledged that in one manner or another, the earliest fish contained the capacity, and the appropriate neural wiring, to bring into existence organs which they did not possess or even need, but which would be the common property of their successors when they left the water for the firm ground, or for the air.

Q: You assert that, in fact, Darwinism doesn't explain much.

S: It seems to me that the union of chance mutation and selection has a certain descriptive value; in no case does the description count as an explanation. Darwinism relates ecological data to the relative abundance of species and environments. In any case, the descriptive value of Darwinian models is pretty limited. Besides, as saltationists have indicated, the gradualist thesis seems completely demented in light of the growth of paleontological knowledge. The miracles of saltationism, on the other hand, cannot discharge the mystery I have described.

Q: Let's return to natural selection. Isn't it the case that despite everything the idea has a certain explanatory value?

S: No one could possibly deny the general thesis that stability is a necessary condition for existence -- the real content of the doctrine of natural selection. The outstanding application of this general principle is Berthollet's laws in elementary chemistry. In a desert, the species that die rapidly are those that require water the most; yet that does not explain the appearance among the survivors of those structures whose particular features permits them to resist aridity. The thesis of natural selection is not very powerful. Except for certain artificial cases, we are yet unable to predict whether this or that species or this or that variety will be favored or not as the result of changes in the environment. What we can do is establish after the fact the effects of natural selection -- to show, for, example that certain birds are disposed to eat this species of snails less often than other species, perhaps because their shell is not as visible. That's ecology: very interesting. To put it another way, natural selection is a weak instrument of proof because the phenomena subsumed by natural selection are obvious and yet they establish nothing from the point of view of the theory.

Q: Isn't the significant explanatory feature of Darwinian theory the connection established between chance mutations and natural selection?

S:With the discovery of coding, we have come to understand that a gene is like a word composed in the DNA alphabet; such words form the genomic text. It is that word that tells the cell to make this or that protein. Either a given protein is structural, or a protein itself works in combination with other signals given by the genome to fabricate yet another protein. All the experimental results we know fall within this scheme. The following scenario then becomes standard. A gene undergoes a mutation, one that may facilitate the reproduction of those individuals carrying it; over time, and with respect to a specific environment, mutants come to be statistically favored, replacing individuals lacking the requisite mutation. Evolution could not be an accumulation of such typographical errors. Population geneticists can study the speed with which a favorable mutation propagates itself under these circumstances. They do this with a lot of skill, but these are academic exercises if only because none of the parameters that they use can be empirically determined. In addition, there are the obstacles I have already mentioned. We know the number of genes in an organism. There are about one hundred thousand for a higher vertebrate. This we know fairly well. But this seems grossly insufficient to explain the incredible quantity of information needed to accomplish evolution within a given line of species.

Q: A concrete example?

S: Darwinists say that horses, which were once mammals as large as rabbits, increased their size to escape more quickly from predators. Within the gradualist model, one might isolate a specific trait -- increase in body size -- and consider it to be the result of a series of typographic changes. The explanatory effect achieved is rhetorical, imposed entirely by trick of insisting that what counts for a herbivore is the speed of its flight when faced by a predator. Now this may even be partially true, but there are no biological grounds that permit us to determine that this is in fact the decisive consideration. After all, increase in body size may well have a negative effect. Darwinists seem to me to have preserved a mechanic vision of evolution, one that prompts them to observe merely a linear succession of causes and effects. The idea that causes may interact with one another is now standard in mathematical physics; it is a point that has had difficulty in penetrating the carapace of biological thought. In fact, within the quasi-totality of observable phenomena, local changes interact in a dramatic fashion; after all, there is hardly an issue of La Recherche that does not contain an allusion to the Butterfly Effect. Information theory is precisely the domain that sharpens our intuitions about these phenomena. A typographical change in a computer program does not change it just a little. It wipes the program out, purely and simply. It is the same with a telephone number. If I intend to call a correspondent by telephone, it doesn't much matter if I am fooled by one, two, three or eight figures in his number.

Q: You accept the idea that biological mutations genuinely have the character of typographical errors?

S: Yes, in the sense that one base is a template for another, one codon for another, but at the level of biochemical activity, one is no longer able properly to speak of typography. There is an entire grammar for the formation of proteins in three dimensions, one that we understand poorly. We do not have at our disposal physical or chemical rules permitting us to construct a mapping from typographical mutations or modifications to biologically effective structures. To return to the example of the eye: a few thousand genes are needed for its fabrication, but each in isolation signifies nothing. What is significant is the combination of their interactions. These cascading interactions, with their feedback loops, express an organization whose complexity we do not know how to analyze (See Figure 1). It is possible we may be able to do so in the future, but there is no doubt that we are unable to do so now. Gehring has recently discovered a segment of DNA which is both involved in the development of the vertebrate eye and which can induce the development of an eye in the wing of a butterfly. His work comprises a demonstration of something utterly astonishing, but not an explanation.

Q:But Dawkins, for example, believes in the possibility of a cumulative process.

S: Dawkins believes in an effect that he calls "the cumulative selection of beneficial mutations." To support his thesis, he resorts to a metaphor introduced by the mathematician Emile Borel -- that of a monkey typing by chance and in the end producing a work of literature. It is a metaphor, I regret to say, embraced by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix. Dawkins has his computer write a series of thirty letters, these corresponding to the number of letters in a verse by Shakespeare. He then proceeds to simulate the Darwinian mechanism of chance mutations and selection. His imaginary monkey types and retypes the same letters, the computer successively choosing the phrase that most resembles the target verse. By means of cumulative selection, the monkey reaches its target in forty or sixty generations.

Q: But you don't believe that a monkey typing on a typewriter, even aided by a computer...

S:This demonstration is a trompe-l'oeil, and what is more, Dawkins doesn't describe precisely how it proceeds. At the beginning of the exercise, randomly generated phrases appear rapidly to approach the target; the closer the approach, the more the process begins to slow. It is the action of mutations in the wrong direction that pulls things backward. In fact, a simple argument shows that unless the numerical parameters are chosen deliberately, the progression begins to bog down completely.

Q:You would say that the model of cumulative selection, imagined by Dawkins, is out of touch with palpable biological realities?

S: Exactly. Dawkins's model lays entirely to the side the triple problems of complexity, functionality, and their interaction.

Q: You are a mathematician. Suppose that you try, despite your reservations, to formalize the concept of functional complexity...

S: I would appeal to a notion banned by the scientific community, but one understood perfectly by everyone else -- that of a goal. As a computer scientist, I could express this in the following way. One constructs a space within which one of the coordinates serves in effect as the thread of Ariane, guiding the trajectory toward the goal. Once the space is constructed, the system evolves in a mechanical way toward its goal. But look, the construction of the relevant space cannot proceed until a preliminary analysis has been carried out, one in which the set of all possible trajectories is assessed, this together with an estimation of their average distance from the specified goal. The preliminary analysis is beyond the reach of empirical study. It presupposes -- the same word that seems to recur in theoretical biology -- that the biologist (or computer scientist) know the totality of the situation, the properties of the ensemble of trajectories. In terms of mathematical logic, the nature of this space is entirely enigmatic. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that the conceptual problems we face, life has entirely solved; the systems embodied in living creatures are entirely successful in reaching their goals. The trick involved in Dawkin's somewhat sheepish example proceeds via the surreptitious introduction of a relevant space. His computer program calculates from a random phrase to a target, a calculation corresponding to nothing in biological reality. The function that he employs flatters the imagination, however, because it has that property of apparent simplicity that elicits naïve approval. In biological reality, the space of even the simplest function has a complexity that defies understanding, and indeed, defies any and all calculations.

Q: Even when they dissent from Darwin, the saltationists are more moderate: they don't pretend to hold the key that would permit them to explain evolution...

S: Before we discuss the saltationists, however, I must say a word about the Japanese biologist Mooto Kimura. He has shown that the majority of mutations are neutral, without any selective effect. For Darwinians upholding the central Darwinian thesis, this is embarrassing... The saltationist view, revived by Stephen Jay Gould, in the end represents an idea due to Richard Goldschmidt. In 1940 or so, he postulated the existence of very intense mutations, no doubt involving hundreds of genes, and taking place rapidly, in less than one thousand generations, thus below the threshold of resolution of paleontology. Curiously enough, Gould does not seem concerned to preserve the union of chance mutations and selection. The saltationists run afoul of two types of criticism. On the one hand, the functionality of their supposed macromutations is inexplicable within the framework of molecular biology. On the other hand, Gould ignores in silence the great trends in biology, such as the increasing complexity of the nervous system. He imagines that the success of new, more sophisticated species, such as the mammals, is a contingent phenomenon. He is not in a position to offer an account of the essential movement of evolution, or at the least, an account of its main trajectories. The saltationists are thus reduced to invoking two types of miracles: macromutations, and the great trajectories of evolution.

Q: In what sense are you employing the word 'miracle'?

S:A miracle is an event that should appear impossible to a Darwinian in view of its ultra-cosmological improbability within the framework of his own theory. Now speaking of macromutations, let me observe that to generate a proper elephant, it will not suffice suddenly to endow it with a full-grown trunk. As the trunk is being organized, a different but complementary system -- the cerebellum -- must be modified in order to establish a place for the ensemble of wiring that the elephant will require to use his trunk. These macromutations must be coordinated by a system of genes in embryogenesis. If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end. No more than the gradualists, the saltationists are unable to provide an account of those miracles. The second category of miracles are directional, offering instruction to the great evolutionary progressions and trends -- the elaboration of the nervous system, of course, but the internalization of the reproductive process as well, and the appearance of bone, the emergence of ears, the enrichment of various functional relationships, and so on. Each is a series of miracles, whose accumulation has the effect of increasing the complexity and efficiency of various organisms. From this point of view, the notion of bricolage [tinkering], introduced by Francois Jacob, involves a fine turn of phrase, but one concealing an utter absence of explanation.

Q: The appearance of human beings -- is that a miracle, in the sense you mean?

S: Naturally. And here it does seem that there are voices among contemporary biologists -- I mean voices other than mine -- who might cast doubt on the Darwinian paradigm that has dominated discussion for the past twenty years. Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of giving a convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher primates: bipedalism, with the concomitant modification of the pelvis, and, without a doubt, the cerebellum, a much more dexterous hand, with fingerprints conferring an especially fine tactile sense; the modifications of the pharynx which permits phonation; the modification of the central nervous system, notably at the level of the temporal lobes, permitting the specific recognition of speech. From the point of view of embryogenesis, these anatomical systems are completely different from one another. Each modification constitutes a gift, a bequest from a primate family to its descendants. It is astonishing that these gifts should have developed simultaneously. Some biologists speak of a predisposition of the genome. Can anyone actually recover the predisposition, supposing that it actually existed? Was it present in the first of the fish? The reality is that we are confronted with total conceptual bankruptcy.

Q:You mentioned the Santa Fe school earlier in our discussion. Do appeals to such notions as chaos...

S:I should have alluded to a succession of highly competent people who have discovered a number of poetic but essentially hollow forms of expression. I am referring here to the noisy crowd collected under the rubric of cybernetics; and beyond, there lie the dissipative structures of Prigogine, or the systems of Varela, or, moving to the present, Stuart Kauffman's edge of chaos -- an organized form of inanity that is certain soon to make its way to France. The Santa Fe school takes complexity to apply to absolutely everything. They draw their representative examples from certain chemical reactions, the pattern of the sea coast, atmosphere turbulence, or the structure of a chain of mountains. The complexity of these structures is certainly considerable, but in comparison with the living world, they exhibit in every case an impoverished form of organization, one that is strictly non-functional. No algorithm allows us to understand the complexity of living creatures, this despite these examples, which owe their initial plausibility to the assumption that the physico-chemical world exhibits functional properties that in reality it does not possess.

Q: Should one take your position as a statement of resignation, an appeal to have greater modesty, or something else altogether?

S: Speaking ironically, I might say that all we can hear at the present time is the great anthropic hymnal, with even a number of mathematically sophisticated scholars keeping time as the great hymn is intoned by tapping their feet. The rest of us should, of course, practice a certain suspension of judgment.