Search This Blog

Sunday 14 August 2016

The Apostle Paul's epistle to the Hebrews.New Jerusalem Bible

1)1 At many moments in the past and by many means, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets; but

2 in our time, the final days, he has spoken to us in the person of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom he made the ages.

3 He is the reflection of God's glory and bears the impress of God's own being, sustaining all things by his powerful command; and now that he has purged sins away, he has taken his seat at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high.

4 So he is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is higher than their own name.

5 To which of the angels, then, has God ever said: You are my Son, today I have fathered you, or: I shall be a father to him and he a son to me?

6 Again, when he brings the First-born into the world, he says: Let all the angels of God pay him homage.

7 To the angels, he says: appointing the winds his messengers and flames of fire his servants,

8 but to the Son he says: Your throne, God, is for ever and ever; and: the sceptre of his kingdom is a sceptre of justice;

9 you love uprightness and detest evil. This is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness, as none of your rivals.

10 And again: Long ago, Lord, you laid earth's foundations, the heavens are the work of your hands.

11 They pass away but you remain, they all wear out like a garment.

12 Like a cloak you will roll them up, like a garment, and they will be changed. But you never alter and your years are unending.

13 To which of the angels has God ever said: Take your seat at my right hand till I have made your enemies your footstool?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
2) 1 We ought, then, to turn our minds more attentively than before to what we have been taught, so that we do not drift away.

2 If a message that was spoken through angels proved to be so reliable that every infringement and disobedience brought its own proper punishment,

3 then we shall certainly not go unpunished if we neglect such a great salvation. It was first announced by the Lord himself, and is guaranteed to us by those who heard him;

4 God himself confirmed their witness with signs and marvels and miracles of all kinds, and by distributing the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the various ways he wills.

5 It was not under angels that he put the world to come, about which we are speaking.

6 Someone witnesses to this somewhere with the words: What are human beings that you spare a thought for them, a child of Adam that you care for him?

7 For a short while you have made him less than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honour,

8 put all things under his feet. For in putting all things under him he made no exceptions. At present, it is true, we are not able to see that all things are under him,

9 but we do see Jesus, who was for a short while made less than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because he submitted to death; so that by God's grace his experience of death should benefit all humanity.

10 It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should, in bringing many sons to glory, make perfect through suffering the leader of their salvation.

11 For consecrator and consecrated are all of the same stock; that is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers

12 in the text: I shall proclaim your name to my brothers, praise you in full assembly; or in the text:

13 I shall put my hope in him; followed by Look, I and the children whom God has given me.

14 Since all the children share the same human nature, he too shared equally in it, so that by his death he could set aside him who held the power of death, namely the devil,

15 and set free all those who had been held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death.

16 For it was not the angels that he took to himself; he took to himself the line of Abraham.

17 It was essential that he should in this way be made completely like his brothers so that he could become a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their relationship to God, able to expiate the sins of the people.

18 For the suffering he himself passed through while being put to the test enables him to help others when they are being put to the test.
3)1 That is why all you who are holy brothers and share the same heavenly call should turn your minds to Jesus, the apostle and the high priest of our profession of faith.

2 He was trustworthy to the one who appointed him, just like Moses, who remained trustworthy in all his household;

3 but he deserves a greater glory than Moses, just as the builder of a house is more honoured than the house itself.

4 Every house is built by someone, of course; but God built everything that exists.

5 It is true that Moses was trustworthy in the household of God, as a servant is, acting as witness to the things which were yet to be revealed,

6 but Christ is trustworthy as a son is, over his household. And we are his household, as long as we fearlessly maintain the hope in which we glory.

7 That is why, as the Holy Spirit says: If only you would listen to him today!

8 Do not harden your hearts, as at the rebellion, as at the time of testing in the desert,

9 when your ancestors challenged me, and put me to the test, and saw what I could do

10 for forty years. That was why that generation sickened me and I said, 'Always fickle hearts, that cannot grasp my ways!'

11 And then in my anger I swore that they would never enter my place of rest.

12 Take care, brothers, that none of you ever has a wicked heart, so unbelieving as to turn away from the living God.

13 Every day, as long as this today lasts, keep encouraging one another so that none of you is hardened by the lure of sin,

14 because we have been granted a share with Christ only if we keep the grasp of our first confidence firm to the end.

15 In this saying: If only you would listen to him today; do not harden your hearts, as at the Rebellion,

16 who was it who listened and then rebelled? Surely all those whom Moses led out of Egypt.

17 And with whom was he angry for forty years? Surely with those who sinned and whose dead bodies fell in the desert.

18 To whom did he swear they would never enter his place of rest? Surely those who would not believe.

19 So we see that it was their refusal to believe which prevented them from entering.
4)1 Let us beware, then: since the promise never lapses, none of you must think that he has come too late for the promise of entering his place of rest.

2 We received the gospel exactly as they did; but hearing the message did them no good because they did not share the faith of those who did listen.

3 We, however, who have faith, are entering a place of rest, as in the text: And then in my anger I swore that they would never enter my place of rest. Now God's work was all finished at the beginning of the world;

4 as one text says, referring to the seventh day: And God rested on the seventh day after all the work he had been doing.

5 And, again, the passage above says: They will never reach my place of rest.

6 It remains the case, then, that there would be some people who would reach it, and since those who first heard the good news were prevented from entering by their refusal to believe,

7 God fixed another day, a Today, when he said through David in the text already quoted: If only you would listen to him today; do not harden your hearts.

8 If Joshua had led them into this place of rest, God would not later have spoken of another day.

9 There must still be, therefore, a seventh-day rest reserved for God's people,

10 since to enter the place of rest is to rest after your work, as God did after his.

11 Let us, then, press forward to enter this place of rest, or some of you might copy this example of refusal to believe and be lost.

12 The word of God is something alive and active: it cuts more incisively than any two-edged sword: it can seek out the place where soul is divided from spirit, or joints from marrow; it can pass judgement on secret emotions and thoughts.

13 No created thing is hidden from him; everything is uncovered and stretched fully open to the eyes of the one to whom we must give account of ourselves.

14 Since in Jesus, the Son of God, we have the supreme high priest who has gone through to the highest heaven, we must hold firm to our profession of faith.

15 For the high priest we have is not incapable of feeling our weaknesses with us, but has been put to the test in exactly the same way as ourselves, apart from sin.

16 Let us, then, have no fear in approaching the throne of grace to receive mercy and to find grace when we are in need of help.
5)1 Every high priest is taken from among human beings and is appointed to act on their behalf in relationships with God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins;

2 he can sympathise with those who are ignorant or who have gone astray, because he too is subject to the limitations of weakness.

3 That is why he has to make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people.

4 No one takes this honour on himself; it needs a call from God, as in Aaron's case.

5 And so it was not Christ who gave himself the glory of becoming high priest, but the one who said to him: You are my Son, today I have fathered you,

6 and in another text: You are a priest for ever, of the order of Melchizedek.

7 During his life on earth, he offered up prayer and entreaty, with loud cries and with tears, to the one who had the power to save him from death, and, winning a hearing by his reverence,

8 he learnt obedience, Son though he was, through his sufferings;

9 when he had been perfected, he became for all who obey him the source of eternal salvation

10 and was acclaimed by God with the title of high priest of the order of Melchizedek.

11 On this subject we have many things to say, and they are difficult to explain because you have grown so slow at understanding.

12 Indeed, when you should by this time have become masters, you need someone to teach you all over again the elements of the principles of God's sayings; you have gone back to needing milk, and not solid food.

13 Truly, no one who is still living on milk can digest the doctrine of saving justice, being still a baby.

14 Solid food is for adults with minds trained by practice to distinguish between good and bad.
6)1 Let us leave behind us then all the elementary teaching about Christ and go on to its completion, without going over the fundamental doctrines again: the turning away from dead actions, faith in God,

2 the teaching about baptisms and the laying -- on of hands, about the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement.

3 This, God willing, is what we propose to do.

4 As for those people who were once brought into the light, and tasted the gift from heaven, and received a share of the Holy Spirit,

5 and tasted the goodness of God's message and the powers of the world to come

6 and yet in spite of this have fallen away -- it is impossible for them to be brought to the freshness of repentance a second time, since they are crucifying the Son of God again for themselves, and making a public exhibition of him.

7 A field that drinks up the rain that has fallen frequently on it, and yields the crops that are wanted by the owners who grew them, receives God's blessing;

8 but one that grows brambles and thistles is worthless, and near to being cursed. It will end by being burnt.

9 But you, my dear friends -- in spite of what we have just said, we are sure you are in a better state and on the way to salvation.

10 God would not be so unjust as to forget all you have done, the love that you have for his name or the services you have done, and are still doing, for the holy people of God.

11 Our desire is that every one of you should go on showing the same enthusiasm till the ultimate fulfilment of your hope,

12 never growing careless, but taking as your model those who by their faith and perseverance are heirs of the promises.

13 When God made the promise to Abraham, he swore by his own self, since there was no one greater he could swear by:

14 I will shower blessings on you and give you many descendants.

15 Because of that, Abraham persevered and received fulfilment of the promise.

16 Human beings, of course, swear an oath by something greater than themselves, and between them, confirmation by an oath puts an end to all dispute.

17 In the same way, when God wanted to show the heirs of the promise even more clearly how unalterable his plan was, he conveyed it by an oath

18 so that through two unalterable factors in which God could not be lying, we who have fled to him might have a vigorous encouragement to grasp the hope held out to us.

19 This is the anchor our souls have, reaching right through inside the curtain

20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest for ever, of the order of Melchizedek.
7)1 Melchizedek, king of Salem, a priest of God Most High, came to meet Abraham when he returned from defeating the kings, and blessed him;

2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. By the interpretation of his name, he is, first, 'king of saving justice' and also king of Salem, that is, 'king of peace';

3 he has no father, mother or ancestry, and his life has no beginning or ending; he is like the Son of God. He remains a priest for ever.

4 Now think how great this man must have been, if the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the finest plunder.

5 We know that any of the descendants of Levi who are admitted to the priesthood are obliged by the Law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their own brothers although they too are descended from Abraham.

6 But this man, who was not of the same descent, took his tithe from Abraham, and he gave his blessing to the holder of the promises.

7 Now it is indisputable that a blessing is given by a superior to an inferior.

8 Further, in the normal case it is ordinary mortal men who receive the tithes, whereas in that case it was one who is attested as being alive.

9 It could be said that Levi himself, who receives tithes, actually paid tithes, in the person of Abraham,

10 because he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek came to meet him.

11 Now if perfection had been reached through the levitical priesthood -- and this was the basis of the Law given to the people -- why was it necessary for a different kind of priest to arise, spoken of as being of the order of Melchizedek rather than of the order of Aaron?

12 Any change in the priesthood must mean a change in the Law as well.

13 So our Lord, of whom these things were said, belonged to a different tribe, the members of which have never done service at the altar;

14 everyone knows he came from Judah, a tribe which Moses did not mention at all when dealing with priests.

15 This becomes even more clearly evident if another priest, of the type of Melchizedek, arises who is a priest

16 not in virtue of a law of physical descent, but in virtue of the power of an indestructible life.

17 For he is attested by the prophecy: You are a priest for ever of the order of Melchizedek.

18 The earlier commandment is thus abolished, because of its weakness and ineffectiveness

19 since the Law could not make anything perfect; but now this commandment is replaced by something better-the hope that brings us close to God.

20 Now the former priests became priests without any oath being sworn,

21 but this one with the swearing of an oath by him who said to him, The Lord has sworn an oath he will never retract: you are a priest for ever;

22 the very fact that it occurred with the swearing of an oath makes the covenant of which Jesus is the guarantee all the greater.

23 Further, the former priests were many in number, because death put an end to each one of them;

24 but this one, because he remains for ever, has a perpetual priesthood.

25 It follows, then, that his power to save those who come to God through him is absolute, since he lives for ever to intercede for them.

26 Such is the high priest that met our need, holy, innocent and uncontaminated, set apart from sinners, and raised up above the heavens;

27 he has no need to offer sacrifices every day, as the high priests do, first for their own sins and only then for those of the people; this he did once and for all by offering himself.

28 The Law appoints high priests who are men subject to weakness; but the promise on oath, which came after the Law, appointed the Son who is made perfect for ever.
8)1 The principal point of all that we have said is that we have a high priest of exactly this kind. He has taken his seat at the right of the throne of divine Majesty in the heavens,

2 and he is the minister of the sanctuary and of the true Tent which the Lord, and not any man, set up.

3 Every high priest is constituted to offer gifts and sacrifices, and so this one too must have something to offer.

4 In fact, if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are others who make the offerings laid down by the Law,

5 though these maintain the service only of a model or a reflection of the heavenly realities; just as Moses, when he had the Tent to build, was warned by God who said: See that you work to the design that was shown you on the mountain.

6 As it is, he has been given a ministry as far superior as is the covenant of which he is the mediator, which is founded on better promises.

7 If that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no room for a second one to replace it.

8 And in fact God does find fault with them; he says: Look, the days are coming, the Lord declares, when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah,

9 but not a covenant like the one I made with their ancestors, the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt, which covenant of mine they broke, and I too abandoned them, the Lord declares.

10 No, this is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel, when those days have come, the Lord declares: In their minds I shall plant my laws writing them on their hearts. Then I shall be their God, and they shall be my people.

11 There will be no further need for each to teach his neighbour, and each his brother, saying 'Learn to know the Lord!' No, they will all know me, from the least to the greatest,

12 since I shall forgive their guilt and never more call their sins to mind.

13 By speaking of a new covenant, he implies that the first one is old. And anything old and ageing is ready to disappear.
9)1 The first covenant also had its laws governing worship and its sanctuary, a sanctuary on this earth.

2 There was a tent which comprised two compartments: the first, in which the lamp-stand, the table and the loaves of permanent offering were kept, was called the Holy Place;

3 then beyond the second veil, a second compartment which was called the Holy of Holies

4 to which belonged the gold altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant, plated all over with gold. In this were kept the gold jar containing the manna, Aaron's branch that grew the buds, and the tables of the covenant.

5 On top of it were the glorious winged creatures, overshadowing the throne of mercy. This is not the time to go into detail about this.

6 Under these provisions, priests go regularly into the outer tent to carry out their acts of worship,

7 but the second tent is entered only once a year, and then only by the high priest who takes in the blood to make an offering for his own and the people's faults of inadvertence.

8 By this, the Holy Spirit means us to see that as long as the old tent stands, the way into the holy place is not opened up;

9 it is a symbol for this present time. None of the gifts and sacrifices offered under these regulations can possibly bring any worshipper to perfection in his conscience;

10 they are rules about outward life, connected with food and drink and washing at various times, which are in force only until the time comes to set things right.

11 But now Christ has come, as the high priest of all the blessings which were to come. He has passed through the greater, the more perfect tent, not made by human hands, that is, not of this created order;

12 and he has entered the sanctuary once and for all, taking with him not the blood of goats and bull calves, but his own blood, having won an eternal redemption.

13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on those who have incurred defilement, may restore their bodily purity.

14 How much more will the blood of Christ, who offered himself, blameless as he was, to God through the eternal Spirit, purify our conscience from dead actions so that we can worship the living God.

15 This makes him the mediator of a new covenant, so that, now that a death has occurred to redeem the sins committed under an earlier covenant, those who have been called to an eternal inheritance may receive the promise.

16 Now wherever a will is in question, the death of the testator must be established;

17 a testament comes into effect only after a death, since it has no force while the testator is still alive.

18 That is why even the earlier covenant was inaugurated with blood,

19 and why, after Moses had promulgated all the commandments of the Law to the people, he took the calves' blood, the goats' blood and some water, and with these he sprinkled the book itself and all the people, using scarlet wool and hyssop;

20 saying as he did so: This is the blood of the covenant that God has made with you.

21 And he sprinkled both the tent and all the liturgical vessels with blood in the same way.

22 In fact, according to the Law, practically every purification takes place by means of blood; and if there is no shedding of blood, there is no remission.

23 Only the copies of heavenly things are purified in this way; the heavenly things themselves have to be purified by a higher sort of sacrifice than this.

24 It is not as though Christ had entered a man-made sanctuary which was merely a model of the real one; he entered heaven itself, so that he now appears in the presence of God on our behalf.

25 And he does not have to offer himself again and again, as the high priest goes into the sanctuary year after year with the blood that is not his own,

26 or else he would have had to suffer over and over again since the world began. As it is, he has made his appearance once and for all, at the end of the last age, to do away with sin by sacrificing himself.

27 Since human beings die only once, after which comes judgement,

28 so Christ too, having offered himself only once to bear the sin of many, will manifest himself a second time, sin being no more, to those who are waiting for him, to bring them salvation.
10)1 So, since the Law contains no more than a reflection of the good things which were still to come, and no true image of them, it is quite incapable of bringing the worshippers to perfection, by means of the same sacrifices repeatedly offered year after year.

2 Otherwise, surely the offering of them would have stopped, because the worshippers, when they had been purified once, would have no awareness of sins.

3 But in fact the sins are recalled year after year in the sacrifices.

4 Bulls' blood and goats' blood are incapable of taking away sins,

5 and that is why he said, on coming into the world: You wanted no sacrifice or cereal offering, but you gave me a body.

6 You took no pleasure in burnt offering or sacrifice for sin;

7 then I said, 'Here I am, I am coming,' in the scroll of the book it is written of me, to do your will, God.

8 He says first You did not want what the Law lays down as the things to be offered, that is: the sacrifices, the cereal offerings, the burnt offerings and the sacrifices for sin, and you took no pleasure in them;

9 and then he says: Here I am! I am coming to do your will. He is abolishing the first sort to establish the second.

10 And this will was for us to be made holy by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ made once and for all.

11 Every priest stands at his duties every day, offering over and over again the same sacrifices which are quite incapable of taking away sins.

12 He, on the other hand, has offered one single sacrifice for sins, and then taken his seat for ever, at the right hand of God,

13 where he is now waiting till his enemies are made his footstool.

14 By virtue of that one single offering, he has achieved the eternal perfection of all who are sanctified.

15 The Holy Spirit attests this to us, for after saying:

16 No, this is the covenant I will make with them, when those days have come. the Lord says: In their minds I will plant my Laws writing them on their hearts,

17 and I shall never more call their sins to mind, or their offences.

18 When these have been forgiven, there can be no more sin offerings.

19 We have then, brothers, complete confidence through the blood of Jesus in entering the sanctuary,

20 by a new way which he has opened for us, a living opening through the curtain, that is to say, his flesh.

21 And we have the high priest over all the sanctuary of God.

22 So as we go in, let us be sincere in heart and filled with faith, our hearts sprinkled and free from any trace of bad conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

23 Let us keep firm in the hope we profess, because the one who made the promise is trustworthy.

24 Let us be concerned for each other, to stir a response in love and good works.

25 Do not absent yourself from your own assemblies, as some do, but encourage each other; the more so as you see the Day drawing near.

26 If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them.

27 There is left only the dreadful prospect of judgement and of the fiery wrath that is to devour your enemies.

28 Anyone who disregards the Law of Moses is ruthlessly put to death on the word of two witnesses or three;

29 and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the Spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment.

30 We are all aware who it was that said: Vengeance is mine; I will pay them back. And again: The Lord will vindicate his people.

31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

32 Remember the great challenge of the sufferings that you had to meet after you received the light, in earlier days;

33 sometimes by being yourselves publicly exposed to humiliations and violence, and sometimes as associates of others who were treated in the same way.

34 For you not only shared in the sufferings of those who were in prison, but you accepted with joy being stripped of your belongings, knowing that you owned something that was better and lasting.

35 Do not lose your fearlessness now, then, since the reward is so great.

36 You will need perseverance if you are to do God's will and gain what he has promised.

37 Only a little while now, a very little while, for come he certainly will before too long.

38 My upright person will live through faith but if he draws back, my soul will take no pleasure in him.

39 We are not the sort of people who draw back, and are lost by it; we are the sort who keep faith until our souls are saved.
11)1 Only faith can guarantee the blessings that we hope for, or prove the existence of realities that are unseen.

2 It is for their faith that our ancestors are acknowledged.

3 It is by faith that we understand that the ages were created by a word from God, so that from the invisible the visible world came to be.

4 It was because of his faith that Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain, and for that he was acknowledged as upright when God himself made acknowledgement of his offerings. Though he is dead, he still speaks by faith.

5 It was because of his faith that Enoch was taken up and did not experience death: he was no more, because God took him; because before his assumption he was acknowledged to have pleased God.

6 Now it is impossible to please God without faith, since anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and rewards those who seek him.

7 It was through his faith that Noah, when he had been warned by God of something that had never been seen before, took care to build an ark to save his family. His faith was a judgement on the world, and he was able to claim the uprightness which comes from faith.

8 It was by faith that Abraham obeyed the call to set out for a country that was the inheritance given to him and his descendants, and that he set out without knowing where he was going.

9 By faith he sojourned in the Promised Land as though it were not his, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise.

10 He looked forward to the well-founded city, designed and built by God.

11 It was equally by faith that Sarah, in spite of being past the age, was made able to conceive, because she believed that he who had made the promise was faithful to it.

12 Because of this, there came from one man, and one who already had the mark of death on him, descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the grains of sand on the seashore which cannot be counted.

13 All these died in faith, before receiving any of the things that had been promised, but they saw them in the far distance and welcomed them, recognising that they were only strangers and nomads on earth.

14 People who use such terms about themselves make it quite plain that they are in search of a homeland.

15 If they had meant the country they came from, they would have had the opportunity to return to it;

16 but in fact they were longing for a better homeland, their heavenly homeland. That is why God is not ashamed to be called their God, since he has founded the city for them.

17 It was by faith that Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He offered to sacrifice his only son even though he had yet to receive what had been promised,

18 and he had been told: Isaac is the one through whom your name will be carried on.

19 He was confident that God had the power even to raise the dead; and so, figuratively speaking, he was given back Isaac from the dead.

20 It was by faith that this same Isaac gave his blessing to Jacob and Esau for the still distant future.

21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph's sons, bowed in reverence, as he leant on his staff.

22 It was by faith that, when he was about to die, Joseph mentioned the Exodus of the Israelites and gave instructions about his own remains.

23 It was by faith that Moses, when he was born, was kept hidden by his parents for three months; because they saw that he was a fine child; they were not afraid of the royal edict.

24 It was by faith that, when he was grown up, Moses refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh's daughter

25 and chose to be ill-treated in company with God's people rather than to enjoy the transitory pleasures of sin.

26 He considered that the humiliations offered to the Anointed were something more precious than all the treasures of Egypt, because he had his eyes fixed on the reward.

27 It was by faith that he left Egypt without fear of the king's anger; he held to his purpose like someone who could see the Invisible.

28 It was by faith that he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood to prevent the Destroyer from touching any of their first-born sons.

29 It was by faith they crossed the Red Sea as easily as dry land, while the Egyptians, trying to do the same, were drowned.

30 It was through faith that the walls of Jericho fell down when the people had marched round them for seven days.

31 It was by faith that Rahab the prostitute welcomed the spies and so was not killed with the unbelievers.

32 What more shall I say? There is not time for me to give an account of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, or of David, Samuel and the prophets.

33 These were men who through faith conquered kingdoms, did what was upright and earned the promises. They could keep a lion's mouth shut,

34 put out blazing fires and emerge unscathed from battle. They were weak people who were given strength to be brave in war and drive back foreign invaders.

35 Some returned to their wives from the dead by resurrection; and others submitted to torture, refusing release so that they would rise again to a better life.

36 Some had to bear being pilloried and flogged, or even chained up in prison.

37 They were stoned, or sawn in half, or killed by the sword; they were homeless, and wore only the skins of sheep and goats; they were in want and hardship, and maltreated.

38 They were too good for the world and they wandered in deserts and mountains and in caves and ravines.

39 These all won acknowledgement through their faith, but they did not receive what was promised,

40 since God had made provision for us to have something better, and they were not to reach perfection except with us.
12)1 With so many witnesses in a great cloud all around us, we too, then, should throw off everything that weighs us down and the sin that clings so closely, and with perseverance keep running in the race which lies ahead of us.

2 Let us keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, who leads us in our faith and brings it to perfection: for the sake of the joy which lay ahead of him, he endured the cross, disregarding the shame of it, and has taken his seat at the right of God's throne.

3 Think of the way he persevered against such opposition from sinners and then you will not lose heart and come to grief.

4 In the fight against sin, you have not yet had to keep fighting to the point of bloodshed.

5 Have you forgotten that encouraging text in which you are addressed as sons? My son, do not scorn correction from the Lord, do not resent his training,

6 for the Lord trains those he loves, and chastises every son he accepts.

7 Perseverance is part of your training; God is treating you as his sons. Has there ever been any son whose father did not train him?

8 If you were not getting this training, as all of you are, then you would be not sons but bastards.

9 Besides, we have all had our human fathers who punished us, and we respected them for it; all the more readily ought we to submit to the Father of spirits, and so earn life.

10 Our human fathers were training us for a short life and according to their own lights; but he does it all for our own good, so that we may share his own holiness.

11 Of course, any discipline is at the time a matter for grief, not joy; but later, in those who have undergone it, it bears fruit in peace and uprightness.

12 So steady all weary hands and trembling knees

13 and make your crooked paths straight; then the injured limb will not be maimed, it will get better instead.

14 Seek peace with all people, and the holiness without which no one can ever see the Lord.

15 Be careful that no one is deprived of the grace of God and that no root of bitterness should begin to grow and make trouble; this can poison a large number.

16 And be careful that there is no immoral person, or anyone worldly minded like Esau, who sold his birthright for one single meal.

17 As you know, when he wanted to obtain the blessing afterwards, he was rejected and, though he pleaded for it with tears, he could find no way of reversing the decision.

18 What you have come to is nothing known to the senses: not a blazing fire, or gloom or total darkness, or a storm;

19 or trumpet-blast or the sound of a voice speaking which made everyone that heard it beg that no more should be said to them.

20 They could not bear the order that was given: If even a beast touches the mountain, it must be stoned.

21 The whole scene was so terrible that Moses said, 'I am afraid and trembling.'

22 But what you have come to is Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem where the millions of angels have gathered for the festival,

23 with the whole Church of first-born sons, enrolled as citizens of heaven. You have come to God himself, the supreme Judge, and to the spirits of the upright who have been made perfect;

24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to purifying blood which pleads more insistently than Abel's.

25 Make sure that you never refuse to listen when he speaks. If the people who on earth refused to listen to a warning could not escape their punishment, how shall we possibly escape if we turn away from a voice that warns us from heaven?

26 That time his voice made the earth shake, but now he has given us this promise: I am going to shake the earth once more and not only the earth but heaven as well.

27 The words once more indicate the removal of what is shaken, since these are created things, so that what is not shaken remains.

28 We have been given possession of an unshakeable kingdom. Let us therefore be grateful and use our gratitude to worship God in the way that pleases him, in reverence and fear.

29 For our God is a consuming fire.
13)1 Continue to love each other like brothers,

2 and remember always to welcome strangers, for by doing this, some people have entertained angels without knowing it.

3 Keep in mind those who are in prison, as though you were in prison with them; and those who are being badly treated, since you too are in the body.

4 Marriage must be honoured by all, and marriages must be kept undefiled, because the sexually immoral and adulterers will come under God's judgement.

5 Put avarice out of your lives and be content with whatever you have; God himself has said: I shall not fail you or desert you,

6 and so we can say with confidence: With the Lord on my side, I fear nothing: what can human beings do to me?

7 Remember your leaders, who preached the word of God to you, and as you reflect on the outcome of their lives, take their faith as your model.

8 Jesus Christ is the same today as he was yesterday and as he will be for ever.

9 Do not be led astray by all sorts of strange doctrines: it is better to rely on grace for inner strength than on food, which has done no good to those who concentrate on it.

10 We have our own altar from which those who serve the Tent have no right to eat.

11 The bodies of the animals whose blood is taken into the sanctuary by the high priest for the rite of expiation are burnt outside the camp,

12 and so Jesus too suffered outside the gate to sanctify the people with his own blood.

13 Let us go to him, then, outside the camp, and bear his humiliation.

14 There is no permanent city for us here; we are looking for the one which is yet to be.

15 Through him, let us offer God an unending sacrifice of praise, the fruit of the lips of those who acknowledge his name.

16 Keep doing good works and sharing your resources, for these are the kinds of sacrifice that please God.

17 Obey your leaders and give way to them; they watch over your souls because they must give an account of them; make this a joy for them to do, and not a grief -- you yourselves would be the losers.

18 Pray for us; we are sure that our own conscience is clear and we are certainly determined to behave honourably in everything we do.

19 I ask you very particularly to pray that I may come back to you all the sooner.

20 I pray that the God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep, by the blood that sealed an eternal covenant,

21 may prepare you to do his will in every kind of good action; effecting in us all whatever is acceptable to himself through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

22 I urge you, brothers, to take these words of encouragement kindly; that is why I have written to you briefly.

23 I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been set free. If he arrives in time, he will be with me when I see you.

24 Greetings to all your leaders and to all God's holy people. God's holy people in Italy send you greetings.

25 Grace be with you all.




Should nutrition science be taken with a grain of salt?

I'm Completely Fed Up with Nutrition Science. You Should Be, Too.
Posted by Ross Pomeroy

Nutrition science is bad for your health! Not really, of course, but if you worried about every single study that linked a certain food to a negative health outcome, you'd probably go insane.

Red meat? Cancer. Grapefruit? Cancer. Cheese? Cancer. Artificial sweeteners? Obesity. Sugar? Obesity. Milk? Bone fracture. The list could go on and on, but let's get to the meat of the article.I'm fed up with nutrition science, and you should be, too.

It was not a single study that evoked my distaste, but a nauseating status quo that's become too much to bear.

The problems with nutrition science begin with how most of its research is conducted. The vast majority of nutrition studies are observational in nature -- scientists look at people who eat certain foods and examine how their health compares with the health of people who don't eat those foods or eat them at different frequencies. But as I reported earlier this year, these sorts of studies have a high chance of being wrong. Very wrong.

In 2011, statisticians S. Stanley Young and Alan Karr teamed up to analyze twelve randomized clinical trials that scrutinized the results of 52 observational studies. Most of the observational studies showed various vitamin supplements to produce positive health outcomes. However, the superior clinical trials disagreed.

"They all confirmed no claims in the direction of the observational claims," Young and Karr revealed in Significance Magazine. "We repeat that figure: 0 out of 52. To put it another way, 100% of the observational claims failed to replicate. In fact, five claims (9.6%) are statistically significant in the clinical trials in the opposite direction to the observational claim."

Observational studies are common in nutrition research because they are relatively cheap and easy to pull off. But you get what you pay for. These studies are often shoddy, primarily because they cannot effectively control for confounding variables. Most also suffer from another key drawback, one that may render them totally meaningless: self-reported data. Subjects report their food consumption by remembering what and how much they ate. Memory is not a recording; it is a reconstruction, making it prone to error. In fact, a 2013 study found that the majority of respondents in the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a survey program that provides data for a plethora of epidemiological studies, reported eating fewer calories than the bare minimum they would need to survive! Something is seriously flawed here.

Unfortunately, when nutrition scientists employ the gold standard of scientific research -- randomized, controlled trials -- the quality of evidence isn't always much better. As health researcher Aaron Carroll wrote for the New York Times:

A 2011 systematic review of studies looking at the effects of artificial sweeteners on clinical outcomes identified 53 randomized controlled trials... only 13 of them lasted for more than a week and involved at least 10 participants. Ten of those 13 trials had a Jadad score — which is a scale from 0 (minimum) to 5 (maximum) to rate the quality of randomized control trials — of 1. This means they were of rather low quality... The longest trial was 10 weeks in length.

The dearth of high quality evidence and bounty of low quality, conflicting research has left the door open for snake oil salesmen to peddle their ineffectual and potentially dangerous products, often under the guise of scientific validity. How is the public to tell what is correct when scientists can't even agree?

Muddying the waters further is the stream of cash pouring into nutrition science from corporate interests. Nestlé funds research, as does Dannon. Coca-Cola has recently been accused of funding scientists who focus on physical activity as the primary cause for obesity rather than the copious amounts of sugar found in their undeniably unhealthy soft drinks. Many of the members of the advisory committee for the federal government's dietary guidelines also have ties to industry.

The ultimate point of nutrition research is to apprise the public of what they should and should not eat. What really is healthy? What isn't? But this endeavor may have been doomed from the start. As was recently showcased in research published to the journal Cell, what's healthy for one person may not be healthy for someone else. Tina Hesman Saey summarized the study over at ScienceNews:

"The researchers made the discovery after fitting 800 people with blood glucose monitors for a week. The people ate standard breakfasts supplied by the researchers. Although the volunteers all ate the same food, their blood glucose levels after eating those foods varied dramatically. Traits and behaviors such as body mass index, sleep, exercise, blood pressure, cholesterol levels and the kinds of microbes living in people’s intestines are associated with blood glucose responses to food, the researchers conclude."

Between poorly conducted research, pervasive corporate influence, and the simple fact that everybody reacts to specific foods differently, nutrition science as a whole must be taken with a gigantic grain of salt.

Peace on earth;how?:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

Peace on Earth—How Will It Come?

The Bible’s answer

Peace on earth will come, not by human efforts, but by means of God’s Kingdom, a heavenly government ruled by Christ Jesus. Notice how the Bible teaches us about this wonderful hope.

God will make “wars to cease to the extremity of the earth,” fulfilling his promise to bring “peace on earth to those with whom he is pleased!”—Psalm 46:9; Luke 2:14, Good News Translation.
God’s Kingdom will rule from heaven over the entire earth. (Daniel 7:14) As a world government, it will eliminate nationalism, which is at the root of many conflicts.
Jesus, the Ruler of God’s Kingdom, is called the “Prince of Peace,” and he will ensure that “to peace there will be no end.”—Isaiah 9:6, 7.
People determined to keep fighting will not be allowed to live under the Kingdom, since “anyone loving violence [God’s] soul certainly hates.”—Psalm 11:5; Proverbs 2:22.
God teaches his subjects how to live in peace. Describing the results of this instruction, the Bible says: “They will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.”—Isaiah 2:3, 4.

Already, millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world are learning from God how to be peaceable. (Matthew 5:9) Although we belong to many different ethnic groups and live in over 230 different lands, we refuse to take up arms against our fellow man.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are learning the ways of peace today.

On the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

Did Jesus Really Exist?

HE WAS neither rich nor powerful. He did not even have a home that he could call his own. Yet his teachings have influenced millions. Did Jesus Christ really exist? What do both modern and ancient authorities say?

Michael Grant, a historian and an expert on ancient classical civilization, noted: “If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”
Rudolf Bultmann, a professor of New Testament studies, stated: “The doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community [of Christians].”
Will Durant, a historian, writer, and philosopher, wrote: “That a few simple men [the Gospel writers] should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”
Albert Einstein, a German-born Jewish physicist, asserted: “I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.” When asked if he viewed Jesus as a historical person, he responded: “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

“No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus.”—Albert Einstein

WHAT DOES HISTORY REVEAL?

The most detailed record of Jesus’ life and ministry is recorded in the Bible accounts known as the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—named after the men who wrote them. In addition, a number of early non-Christian sources name him.

TACITUS

(c. 56-120 C.E., or Common Era) Tacitus is considered to be one of the greatest of the ancient Roman historians. His Annals deal with the Roman Empire from 14 C.E. to 68 C.E. (Jesus died in 33 C.E.) Tacitus wrote that when a great fire devastated Rome in 64 C.E., Emperor Nero was considered responsible. But Tacitus wrote that Nero accused the Christians in order to “scotch the rumour.” Then Tacitus said: “Christus, the founder of the name [Christian], had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus.”—Annals, XV, 44.


SUETONIUS

(c. 69–a. 122 C.E.) In his Lives of the Caesars, this Roman historian recorded events during the reigns of the first 11 Roman emperors. The section on Claudius refers to turmoil among the Jews in Rome that was likely caused by disputes over Jesus. (Acts 18:2) Suetonius wrote: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christus], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.” (The Deified Claudius, XXV, 4) Although wrongly accusing Jesus of creating disturbances, Suetonius did not doubt his existence.


PLINY THE YOUNGER

(c. 61-113 C.E.) This Roman author and administrator in Bithynia (modern Turkey) wrote to Roman Emperor Trajan about how to deal with the Christians in that province. Pliny said that he tried to force Christians to recant, executing any who refused to do so. He explained: “Those who . . . repeated after me an invocation to the [pagan] Gods, and offered adoration, with wine and frankincense, to your image . . . and who finally cursed Christ . . . , I thought it proper to discharge.”—Pliny—Letters, Book X, XCVI.


 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

(c. 37-100 C.E.) This Jewish priest and historian states that Annas, a Jewish high priest who continued to wield political influence, “convened the judges of the Sanhedrin [the Jewish high court] and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.”—Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200.


THE TALMUD


This collection of Jewish rabbinic writings, dating from the third to the sixth centuries C.E., shows that even Jesus’ enemies affirmed his existence. One passage says that on “the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] the Nazarean was hanged,” which is historically correct. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, Munich Codex; see John 19:14-16.) Another states: “May we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself in public like the Nazarene”—a title often applied to Jesus.—Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 17b, footnote, Munich Codex; see Luke 18:37.

EVIDENCE FROM THE BIBLE

The Gospels give us a comprehensive account of Jesus’ life and ministry, including specific details about people, places, and times—the hallmarks of authentic history. An example is found at Luke 3:1, 2, which helps us to establish the exact date when a man named John the Baptist, a forerunner of Jesus, commenced his work.


Luke wrote: “In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod was district ruler of Galilee, Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was district ruler of Abilene, in the days of chief priest Annas and of Caiaphas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.” This detailed, precise list enables us to establish that “God’s declaration came to John” in the year 29 C.E.


 The seven public figures Luke names are well-known to historians. That said, for a time certain critics did question the existence of Pontius Pilate and Lysanias. But the critics spoke too soon. Ancient inscriptions bearing the names of those two officials have been discovered, confirming Luke’s accuracy.

 WHY DOES IT MATTER?

The question of Jesus’ existence matters because his teachings matter. For example, Jesus taught people how to live happy, fulfilling lives. * He also promised a time when mankind will live in true peace and security, united under a single world government called “the Kingdom of God.”—Luke 4:43.

The designation “the Kingdom of God” is appropriate because this world government will express God’s sovereignty over the earth. (Revelation 11:15) Jesus made that fact clear when he said in his model prayer: “Our Father in the heavens, . . . let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place . . . on earth.” (Matthew 6:9, 10) What will Kingdom rule mean for mankind? Consider the following:

Warfare and civil strife will cease.—Psalm 46:8-11.
Wickedness, including greed and corruption, will be gone forever, along with ungodly people.—Psalm 37:10, 11.
The Kingdom’s subjects will enjoy meaningful, productive work.—Isaiah 65:21, 22.
The earth will fully recover from its present sick state and produce bountiful crops.—Psalm 72:16; Isaiah 11:9.
Some people may consider those promises wishful thinking. But is it not wishful thinking to trust in human efforts? Consider: Even in spite of spectacular advances in education, science, and technology, millions today feel deeply insecure and uncertain about tomorrow. And daily we see evidence of economic, political, and religious oppression, as well as greed and corruption. Yes, the reality is that human rule is a failure!—Ecclesiastes 8:9.


At the very least, the question of Jesus’ existence merits our consideration. * As 2 Corinthians 1:19, 20 states: “No matter how many the promises of God are, they have become ‘yes’ by means of [Christ].”

Saturday 13 August 2016

Solution to cambrian mystery:Just add yeast.

Cambrian Explosion Explained by Yeast Clumping Together

David Klinghoffer


We've made sort of a hobby of collating and dissecting theories of how an explosion of complex novel life forms, the Cambrian explosion, can be explained without reference to the obvious explanation, intelligent design.

It's almost too much to keep up with:

And more.

Now comes the yeast theory. From New Scientist:

Just a few generations after evolving multicellularity, lab yeasts have already settled into at least two distinct lifestyles.

The discovery suggests that organisms can swiftly fill new niches opened up by evolutionary innovations, just as the first multicellular animals appear to have done on Earth, hundreds of millions of years ago.

In the lab, yeast cells clumped together, forming larger and smaller "snowflakes."

In short, large and small yeast morphs specialise in different settling strategies, so both can coexist.

These two distinct ecological strategies appeared almost immediately once the multicellular yeasts themselves evolved, notes Travisano.

This provides experimental proof that when evolution makes a great leap forward -- such as the origin of multicellularity -- organisms can diversify rapidly to take advantage of the change.

Many years ago, palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould suggested that a similar sudden ecological diversification may have led to the Cambrian Explosion in which most animal body forms arose in the fossil record within a few tens of millions of years.

"Possibly what we see here is the first step of what Gould's talking about -- the opening up of diversity due to a key innovation," says Travisano.

Yeast cells clump together. Ergo trilobites.

"Possibly," given a "few tens of millions of years," this could represent a "first step" toward massive diversification.

Ann Gauger has written here about not entirely dissimilar speculations about the development of multicellularity, with Volvox rather than yeast as the illustration. "Saying that something might have happened," she observes, "is not the same as showing that it actually could happen."

"A Simple Transition to Multicellularity -- Not!"

A simple transition from clumping yeast to menagerie of beasts leaves even more "white space," as Dr. Gauger politely puts it, to fill in with needed details.

"The White Space in Evolutionary Thinking"

The white space in the yeast theory is blinding. It's a blizzard of white, obscuring all vision.

The truth is that evolutionists have no idea what produced the Cambrian explosion. Yet, knowing this is an almost immeasurably vast defect in the armature of their theory, they keep throwing speculations at it in the hope that something will stick, or clump.

The solution, though, is right before their eyes, or anyway, your eyes:

Have Darwinian theories on human evolution run out of time?

The Origin of Man and the "Waiting Time" Problem
John Sanford 

Editor's note: We are pleased to welcome a contribution from Dr. Sanford, who is Courtesy Associate Professor, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University.

My colleagues and I recently published a paper in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, "The Waiting Time Problem in a Model Hominin Population." It is one of the journal's "highly accessed" articles. A pre-human hominin population of roughly 10,000 individuals is thought to have evolved into modern man, during a period of less than six million years. This would have required the establishment of a great deal of new biological information. That means, minimally, millions of specific beneficial mutations, and a large number of specific beneficial sets of mutations, selectively fixed in this very short period of time. We show that there is simply not enough time for this type of evolution to have occurred in the population from which we supposedly arose.

Historically, Darwin-defenders have argued that time is on their side. They have claimed that given enough time, any evolutionary scenario is feasible. They have consistently argued that given millions of years, very large amounts of new biologically meaningful information can arise by the Darwinian process of mutation/selection. However, careful analysis of what is required to establish even a single genetic "word" (a short functional string of genetic letters) within a hominin genome shows just the opposite. Even given tens of millions of years, there is not enough time to generate the genetic equivalent of the simplest "word" (two or more nucleotides). Even in a hundred billion years, much longer than the age of the universe, there is not enough time to establish the genetic equivalent of a very simple "sentence" (ten or more nucleotides). This problem is so fundamental that it justifies a complete re-assessment of the basic Darwinian mechanism.

In my book Genetic Entropy, I have previously outlined the waiting time problem (for example, see the 2014 edition, Chapter 9, pp. 133-136). My calculations there, and calculations published by others (Behe, Snoke, Axe, Gauger et al.), all demonstrate the same basic problem. (For a complete literature review, see the link to our new paper given above.) What this new paper provides is an independent validation, by a totally different method, of the previous works done by Behe, others, and myself.

In our paper we examine the waiting time problem in a new way, employing state-of-the-art, comprehensive, numerical simulations to empirically document the time required to create a specific string of mutations. This method is an alternative to employing mathematical approximations, and is preferable for various reasons outlined in the paper. Our empirical experiments realistically enacted the establishment of short genetic sequences within biologically realistic virtual hominin populations. These experiments demonstrate the limits of the classic neo-Darwinian mechanism in a clearer, and more compelling way. Of special significance, we show that as genetic "word size" increases linearly, waiting time increases exponentially (see Table 2 in the new publication).

The waiting time problem has four basic elements. First, in a small population it takes a very long time for any specific nucleotide (genetic letter) to mutate into a specific alternate nucleotide. Second, it takes vastly more time for a given string of nucleotides to mutate into a specific alternative string of nucleotides (as is required to create a new beneficial genetic "word"). Third, any specific new word that arises is quickly lost due to genetic drift, and so must arise many times before it "catches hold" within the population. And fourth, even when the new word catches hold, it takes additional time for natural selection to amplify the new beneficial mutation to the point of fixation within the population.

Our paper shows that the waiting time problem cannot honestly be ignored. Even given best-case scenarios, using parameter settings that are grossly overgenerous (for example, rewarding a given string by increasing total fitness 10 percent), waiting times are consistently prohibitive. This is even for the shortest possible words. Establishment of just a two-letter word (two specific mutations within a hominin population of ten thousand) requires at least 84 million years. A three-letter word requires at least 376 million years. A six-letter word requires over 4 billion years. An eight-letter word requires over 18 billion years (again, see Table 2 in the paper). The waiting time problem is so profound that even given the most generous feasible timeframes, evolution fails. The mutation/selection process completely fails to reproducibly and systematically create meaningful strings of genetic letters in a pre-human population.

Other authors have published on the waiting time problem and they have consistently acknowledged its reality, but some have then tried to minimize the problem. In those cases, the authors have first shown the waiting problem is serious, but then go on to invoke very special atypical conditions, seeking to reduce waiting times as much as possible. This is evidently in the hope of saving neo-Darwinian theory. But when these "special conditions" are carefully examined, in every case they are far-fetched and ad hoc.

When the dismissive authors use the same formulation of the problem as we used in our paper, they see the same prohibitive waiting times (see our paper's discussion). For example Durrett and Schmidt (2007) model a human population of 10,000, just as we do. They show that for a specific set of eight required mutations (which must arise in the context of a specific genomic location), the waiting time is 650 million years. But most readers will miss the fact that this is just their estimated time to the "first instance" of the string. Elsewhere in their paper they acknowledge that the establishment and fixation of the specific set of mutations would take 100 times longer than the first instance (when they assume a 1 percent fitness reward). This would be 65 billion years! Using the same parameter settings (and applying a 1 percent fitness reward) our own experiments give waiting times of the same magnitude. Likewise, when Lynch and Abegg (2010) specify a population of 10,000, and when two specific mutations are required, they get waiting times exceeding 10 million generations (see their Figure 1). Assuming twenty years per generation for a human population, this is more than 200 million years (see our paper's discussion).

What will the primary counterargument be to the waiting time problem? The primary objection is, and will continue to be, as follows. Within a small population, a given string of letters cannot arise in a specific location without a prohibitive waiting time, yet somewhere else in the genome good things might still be happening. For example, if one is waiting for the sequence ATCG to be fixed in a specific genomic location, it will require very deep time, but it will take no time at all if one is waiting for ATCG to arise anywhere in the genome. Indeed, many copies of ATCG are already in the genome. This argument has three problems.

First, it ignores context. The sequence ATCG by itself is not useful information. It can never be beneficial (and hence selectable), except in a very specific context. Consider randomly changing one word in an encyclopedia -- will it consistently improve the text, regardless of where the change is made? All information is context-dependent. For example, if you have an executable computer program, inserting a certain random string of binary digits could conceivably improve the program's information content. But in such a very unlikely case, it would only be beneficial within an extremely specific context (location). When inserted out of context, the same string would almost certainly be deleterious.

Second, when we broaden our view to include the whole genome, we have to consider the problem of net loss of information, due to a multitude of nearly neutral deleterious mutations that are happening throughout the genome. Random mutation will cause ubiquitous genetic damage (especially in deep time), which will greatly overshadow the few rare strings that might arise in just the right context and might be sufficiently beneficial to be selectable.

Third, invoking "good things that might be happening in other parts of the genome" is essentially sleight of hand. Other potentially beneficial sets of mutations in other parts of the genome will each have their own waiting time problem. This is not a reasonable explanation for the origin of the massive amount of integrated biological information that is required to change an ape into a man (i.e., millions of complementary nucleotide substitutions established and fixed within the source hominin genome, in very little time).


Given that higher genomes must continuously accumulate deleterious mutations (as I show in Genetic Entropy), and given that beneficial mutations are very rare (as shown by the famous Lenski LTEE project, and also as shown in Genetic Entropy), and given that evolution cannot create meaningful genetic words (even given deep time), it seems that neo-Darwinian theory is coming undone on every level.

Darwinism Vs. the real world. XXXII

Can You Hear Me Now? Good, Then Thank Your Irreducibly Complex Ears.
Howard Glicksman 

Editor's note: Physicians have a special place among the thinkers who have elaborated the argument for intelligent design. Perhaps that's because, more than evolutionary biologists, they are familiar with the challenges of maintaining a functioning complex system, the human body. With that in mind, Evolution News is delighted to offer this series, "The Designed Body." For the complete series, see here. Dr. Glicksman practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization.

Thermometer measures temperature and a barometer measures air pressure. But how do they do it? Each device is essentially a sensory transducer with a mechanism that enables it to sense a physical phenomenon and convert it into useful information. The devices the body uses to detect physical phenomena so it knows what is going on outside and inside of it are sensory transducers as well. Hearing is the sensation we experience when vibrating molecules within a medium, typically air (but sometimes water), form mechanical waves within a specific wavelength range and enter our ears.

Common sense tells us that without this special sense our earliest ancestors could never have survived. Evolutionary biologists claim that similar auditory mechanisms in other life forms prove that it was easy for chance and the laws of nature alone to invent hearing. But as in the development of human technologies, experience teaches that intelligent design is a more plausible explanation. Darwinists oversimplify the need for the presence of all the parts of the ear for it to hear well enough for human survival. They also fail to take into account how our brain converts what it receives into what we experience as hearing.

In truth, hearing is a mystery that nobody, not even evolutionary biologists, understands. Nobody really understands how we can hear, so nobody should claim to understand how the ear and hearing came into being. Yet that doesn't stop Darwinists from telling us otherwise. Let's look at what makes up the ear, how it works, and what the brain receives from it which it then converts into the sensation we call hearing.

Sound waves are oscillations, the back and forth movement of molecules within a medium, such as air. These vibrations are transmitted to adjacent molecules and spreads out in all directions. Sound is not due to the linear movement of air -- that is called wind. Furthermore, since a vacuum has no air molecules it cannot transmit sound since there are no air molecules within it to vibrate. The physical nature of sound waves is that the air particles alternate between being packed together in areas of high concentration, called compressions, and spread apart in areas of low concentration called rarefactions. These compressions and rarefactions of air molecules form longitudinal pressure waves which, depending on the type of sound and the energy used to create them, have amplitude, wavelength, and frequency. Sound waves travel at about 330 m/sec, and since light travels at 300,000 km/sec, this means that light is literally about a million times faster than sound.

The human ear is a very complex sensory organ in which all of parts work together to produce and transmit mechanical waves of oscillating molecules to its cochlea. Although it is in the cochlea where the nerve impulses for hearing begin, the other parts of the ear play important roles that support cochlear function. The ear can be divided into three regions; the outer (external) ear, the middle ear, and the inner (internal) ear.

The outer ear consists of the pinna (ear flap), the ear canal, and the eardrum (tympanic membrane). The pinna acts like a satellite dish, collecting sound waves and funneling them down the ear canal to the eardrum. The pinna is made of flexible cartilage and is important for determining the location of different sounds. The ear canal produces wax which provides lubrication while at the same time protecting the eardrum from dust, dirt, and invading microbes and insects. The cells that line the ear canal form near the eardrum and naturally migrate outward toward the entrance of the ear canal, taking with them the overlying ear wax, and are shed from the ear. This provides a natural mechanism of wax removal. Sound waves enter through an opening in the skull called the external auditory meatus. They naturally move down the ear canal and strike the eardrum. The eardrum is a very thin cone-shaped membrane which responds to sound waves by vibrating to a degree that is determined by their amplitude, wave length, and frequency. It represents the end of the outer ear and the beginning of the middle ear.

The middle ear is an enclosed air-filled chamber in which the air pressure on either side of the eardrum must be equal to allow for adequate compliance, a measure of how easily the eardrum will move when stimulated by sound waves. The air in the middle ear tends to be absorbed by the surrounding tissue which, if not corrected, can lead to a vacuum effect, reduced eardrum compliance, and thus impaired hearing. The auditory tube in the middle ear connects with the back of the nose and pharynx. The muscular action of swallowing, yawning, or chewing causes the auditory tube to open, allowing ambient air to enter the middle ear, replacing what has been absorbed and equalizing the air pressure on both sides of the eardrum. Anyone who has flown in an airplane has experienced this vacuum effect as the plane descended and felt its resolution when a popping sound in the ear signified that air had entered the middle ear through the auditory tube.

The middle ear contains the three smallest bones in the body, the ossicles, which include the malleus (hammer), the incus (anvil), and the stapes (stirrup). The job of the ossicles is to efficiently transmit the vibrations of the eardrum into the inner ear which houses the cochlea. This is accomplished by the malleus being attached to the eardrum and the incus, the incus to the malleus and the stapes, and the stapes to the incus and the oval window of the cochlea.

The cochlea consists of three fluid-filled interrelated coiled chambers which spiral together for about two and half turns resembling a snail shell. Within the cochlea is the organ of Corti, the sensory receptor that converts the mechanical waves into nerve impulses. The vibrations, started by sound waves striking the eardrum and transmitted by the ossicles in the middle ear to the oval window of the cochlea, now produce fluid waves within it. The organ of Corti contains about 20,000 hair cells (neurons) running the length of the spiraled cochlea which when stimulated by these fluid waves causes them to bend and depolarize, sending impulses through the auditory nerve to the brain. Higher frequencies cause more motion at one end of the organ of Corti while lower frequencies cause more motion at the other end. The specific cochlear neurons that service specific hair cells along the organ of Corti respond to specific frequencies of sound which, when sent to the auditory cortex, are processed, integrated, and then interpreted as hearing. How the brain is able to perform this feat is as yet not fully understood.

Evolutionary biologists, using their well-developed imaginations, expound on how all the parts of the ear must have come together by chance and the laws of nature alone. However, as usual, they only try to explain how life looks and not how it actually works under the laws of nature to survive. Besides the development of all of its perfectly integrated parts, they never mention the problem the ear faces when it comes to transmitting the vibrations of the tympanic membrane to the organ of Corti with enough pressure to allow for adequate hearing to take place.

It is much easier to move through air than it is through water. That is because of water's higher density. This means that it is much easier for sound waves in the air to move from the eardrum through the middle ear than it is for the oval window to move waves of fluid through the cochlea. Without some sort of innovation, this difference in air/water density would have so reduced the amplitude of the fluid waves in the cochlea that the hearing ability of our earliest ancestors would have been severely compromised and with it, their survival capacity.

So, what novelty of engineering did our ears develop to let them transmit sound waves through the outer and middle ear to the cochlear fluid with enough amplitude to allow for adequate hearing? It is important to remember that F= PA, Force is equal to Pressure times Area. This means that with a given force, the pressure on a given surface is inversely related to its area. If the area decreases, the pressure on the surface increases, and if the area increases, the pressure decreases.

It just so happens that the surface area of the tympanic membrane is about twenty times larger than that of the oval window. This means that the force generated by the vibrations coming from the tympanic membrane through the ossicles to the oval window naturally increases twentyfold on the cochlear fluid. It was this mechanical advantage of their larger tympanic membranes transmitting vibrations through their ossicles to their smaller oval windows of their cochleae that allowed our earliest ancestors' ears to have adequate hearing so they could survive within the world of sound.

Evolutionary biologists seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that the parts used for hearing are not only irreducibly complex, but, to have functioned well enough so our earliest ancestors could hear well enough to survive, they must also have had a natural survival capacity. When it comes to the laws of nature, real numbers have real consequences.


But besides the cochlea there is another very important sensory transducer within the inner ear. Next time we'll look at vestibular function and how it let our earliest ancestors stay balanced.

Nature's navigators in the dock for Design.

Search for a Search: Does Evolutionary Theory Help Explain Animal Navigation?
Evolution News & Views

The living world is filled with searches. Moths find their mates. Bacteria find food sources. Plant roots find nutrients in the soil. Illustra's film Living Waters includes incredible examples of search: dolphins finding prey with echolocation, salmon navigating to their breeding grounds with their exceptional sense of smell, and sea turtles making their way thousands of miles to distant feeding grounds and back home again using the earth's magnetic field.

The subject of search looms large in William Dembski's ID books No Free Lunch and Being as Communion. When you think about search for a moment, several factors imply intelligent design. The entity (whether living or programmed) has to have a goal. It has to receive cues from the environment and interpret them. And it has to be able to move toward its target accurately. Dembski demonstrates mathematically that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search unless extra information is added from outside the system.

In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this month, five scientists from Princeton and MIT encourage a multi-disciplinary effort to understand the natural search algorithms employed by living things.

The ability to navigate is a hallmark of living systems, from single cells to higher animals. Searching for targets, such as food or mates in particular, is one of the fundamental navigational tasks many organisms must execute to survive and reproduce. Here, we argue that a recent surge of studies of the proximate mechanisms that underlie search behavior offers a new opportunity to integrate the biophysics and neuroscience of sensory systems with ecological and evolutionary processes, closing a feedback loop that promises exciting new avenues of scientific exploration at the frontier of systems biology. [Emphasis added.]
Systems biology, a hot trend in science as Steve Laufmann has explained on ID the Future, looks at an organism the way a systems engineer would. These scientists (two evolutionary biologists and three engineers) refer several times to human engineering as analogous to nature's search algorithms. Specifically, "search research" to an engineer (finding a target in a mess of noisy data) reveals many similarities with the searches animals perform. By studying animal search algorithms, in fact, we might even learn to improve our searches.

The fact that biological entities of many kinds must overcome what appear, at least on the surface, to be similar challenges in their search processes raises a question: Has evolution led these entities to solve their respective search problems in similar ways? Clearly the molecular and biomechanical mechanisms a bacterium uses to climb a chemical gradient are different from the neural processes a moth uses to search for a potential mate. But at a more abstract level, it is tempting to speculate that the two organisms have evolved strategies that share a set of properties that ensure effective search. This leads to our first question: Do the search strategies that different kinds of organisms have evolved share a common set of features? If the answer to this question is "yes," many other questions follow. For example, what are the selective pressures that lead to such convergent evolution? Do common features of search strategies reflect common features of search environments? Can shared features of search strategies inform the design of engineered searchers, for example, synthetic microswimmers for use in human health applications or searching robots?
The paper is an interesting read. The authors describe several examples of amazing search capabilities in the living world. Living things daily reach their targets with high precision despite numerous challenges. Incoming data is often noisy and dynamic, changing with each puff of wind or cross current. Signal gradients are often patchy, not uniform. Yet somehow, bacteria can climb a chemical gradient, insects can follow very dilute pheromones, and mice can locate grain in the dark. Even in our own bodies, immune cells follow invisible cue gradients to their targets. Everywhere, from signal molecules inside cells to whole populations of higher organisms, searches are constantly going on in the biosphere.

The engineering required for a successful search, whether natural or artificial, exemplifies optimization -- an intelligent design science. It's not enough to have sensitive detectors, for instance. If too sensitive, a detector can become saturated by a strong signal. Many animal senses have adaptation mechanisms that can quench strong signals when necessary, allowing detection over many orders of magnitude. This happens in the human ear; automatic gain control in the hair cells of the cochlea gives humans a trillion-to-one dynamic range. A recent paper showed that human eyes are capable of detecting single photons! Yet we can adjust to bright sunlight with the same detectors, thanks to the automatic iris and other adaptation mechanisms in the retinal neurons.

In the PNAS paper, the authors describe additional trade-off challenges for natural search algorithms. For instance, should the organism go for the richest food source, if that will expose it to predators? Should populations with similar needs compete for resources, or divide them up? Each benefit incurs a cost. A well-designed search algorithm handles the trade-offs while maximizing the reward, even if the reward is less than ideal. Engineers have to solve similar optimization problems. They have a word for it: "satisficing" the need by reaching at least the minimum requirement. It's obvious that achieving the best solution to multiple competing goals in a dynamic, noisy environment is a huge challenge for both engineers and animals.

The otherwise insightful paper runs into problems when it tries to evolutionize search. They say, "We expect natural selection to drive the evolution of algorithms that yield high search performance, while balancing fitness costs, such as exposure to predation risk." Great expectations, but can they hold up to scrutiny?

The authors assume evolution instead of demonstrating it. They say that organisms "have evolved" strategies for searching. Because of the irreducible complexity of any system requiring sensors, detectors, interpreters and responders to pull off a successful search, this would amount to a miracle.

They appeal to "convergent evolution" to account for similar search algorithms in unrelated organisms. This multiplies the miracles required.

They speak of the environment as supplying "selective pressure" for organisms to evolve their algorithms. If the environment could pressure the formation of search algorithms, then rocks and winds would have them, too. The environment can influence the formation of a dust devil, but the whirlwind isn't searching for anything. The environment can make rocks fall and rivers flow in certain directions, but they don't care where they are going. It takes programming to find a target that has been specified in advance.

Most serious of all, the claim that natural selection can drive the evolution of search algorithms undermines itself. In a real sense, the scientists themselves are performing a search -- a search for a search. They want to search for a universal model to explain animal search algorithms. But if they themselves are products of natural selection, then they would have no way of arriving at their own target: that being, "understanding" the natural world and explaining how it emerged.

To see why their search is doomed, see Nancy Pearcey's article, "Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself." The authors in PNAS must apply their own explanation to themselves. But then it becomes a self-referential absurdity, because they would have to say that the environment pressured them to say what they said. Their explanation, furthermore, would have no necessary connection to truth -- only to survival. Remember Donald Hoffman's debunking of evolutionary epistemology? "According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness," he said. "Never." Consequently, the authors of the paper cannot be sure of anything, including their claim that natural selection drives the evolution of search algorithms.


What we can say is that every time we observe a search algorithm coming into being, whether the Google search engine or a class in orienteering, we know intelligence was involved. What we never see is a new search algorithm emerging from mindless natural causes. We therefore know of a vera causa -- a true cause -- that can explain highly successful search algorithms in nature.

Sunday 7 August 2016

File under "Well said" XXXII

Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours.
John locke.

On the supposed solution to the cambrian mystery or "It came from outer space"

To Create Cambrian Animals, Whack the Earth from Space
Evolution News & Views

It's surely not a coincidence that this season in science-journal publishing we've seen a variety of attempts to solve the enigma that Stephen Meyer describes in his new book, Darwin's Doubt. The problem, of course, is how to account for the geologically sudden eruption of complex new life forms in the Cambrian explosion. Meyer argues that the best explanation is intelligent design.

The orthodox materialist camp in mainstream science remains in full denial mode. They can't stomach the proposal of ID, but neither can they for the most part bring themselves to answer Meyer by name, or even admit there's a controversy on the subject. Charles Marshall, reviewing the book in Science, is the honorable exception. So we get what look like stealth responses to Meyer's book that claim to have figured out the Cambrian puzzle without telling you what the urgency for doing so really is, thus evading the task of responding to Meyer directly. (See David Klinghoffer's review of the reviewers of Darwin's Doubt, "A Taxonomy of Evasion.")

Probably the most hopeless solution so far ascribes some of the creative power to a blast in the ocean by a space impact. This supposedly helped "set the stage" for the rapid proliferation of new animal forms. When we examine the complexity of a single Cambrian fossil, though, such a notion, like the others on offer, leaves all the important questions unanswered.

To his credit, Grant M. Young, the author of the proposal, is somewhat modest in the way he formulates his idea. His paper in GSA Today is primarily concerned with looking for evidence of a "very large marine impact" prior to the Ediacaran Period that sent vast quantities of water and oxygen into the atmosphere, changed the obliquity of Earth's spin axis, and altered sea levels. The aftermath of that catastrophe, he speculates, played a role in the Cambrian explosion -- but a "crucial" one.

Attendant unprecedented environmental reorganization may have played a crucial role in the emergence of complex life forms. (Emphasis added.)

That's all Young had to say about it, but the suggestion was enough for NASA's Astrobiology Magazine to jump on it with a breathless headline: "Did a Huge Impact Lead to the Cambrian Explosion?" Author Johnny Bontemps catapulted that tease into the notion that "The ensuing environmental re-organization would have then set the stage for the emergence of complex life." Bontemps is correct about one thing:

These events marked the beginning of another drastic event known as the Cambrian explosion. Animal life on Earth suddenly blossomed, with all of the major groups of animals alive today making their first appearance.

Let's take a look at just one of the Cambrian animals, as seen in an exquisitely preserved new fossil from the Chengjiang strata in China, where so many beautiful fossils have been found (examples are shown in the Illustra film Darwin's Dilemma). The new fossil, Alalcomenaeus, published by Nature, was furnished with multiple claws like other Cambrian arthropods, but was so well preserved its nervous system could be outlined in detail. Even though it is dated from the early Cambrian at 520 million years old, it already had the nerves of modern spiders. Co-author Nick Strausfeld explains:

"We now know that the megacheirans had central nervous systems very similar to today's horseshoe crabs and scorpions," said Strausfeld, the senior author of the study and a Regents' Professor in the UA's Department of Neuroscience. "This means the ancestors of spiders and their kin lived side by side with the ancestors of crustaceans in the Lower Cambrian."'

Though tiny (about an inch long), its nervous system must have been fairly advanced, because the elongated creature was capable of swimming or crawling or both. In addition to about a dozen body segments with jointed appendages, it had a "pair of long, scissor-like appendages attached to the head, most likely for grasping or sensory purposes." It also had two pairs of eyes.

Iron deposits selectively accumulated in the nerve cells, allowing the research team to reconstruct the highly organized brain and nervous system. After processing with CT scans and iron scans, "out popped this beautiful nervous system in startling detail."

Comparing the outline of the fossil nervous system to nervous systems of horseshoe crabs and scorpions left no doubt that 520-million-year-old Alalcomenaeus was a member of the chelicerates.

Specifically, the fossil shows the typical hallmarks of the brains found in scorpions and spiders: Three clusters of nerve cells known as ganglia fused together as a brain also fused with some of the animal's body ganglia. This differs from crustaceans where ganglia are further apart and connected by long nerves, like the rungs of a rope ladder.

Other diagnostic features include the forward position of the gut opening in the brain and the arrangement of optic centers outside and inside the brain supplied by two pairs of eyes, just like in horseshoe crabs.

Horseshoe crabs survive as "living fossils" to this day, as residents near the Great Lakes know from the annual swarms. This fossil resembles modern chelicerates, one of the largest subphyla of arthropods, including horseshoe crabs, scorpions, spiders, mites, harvestmen, and ticks. Live Science adds, "The discovery of a fossilized brain in the preserved remains of an extinct 'mega-clawed' creature has revealed an ancient nervous system that is remarkably similar to that of modern-day spiders and scorpions."

Since crustaceans and chelicerates have both been found in the early Cambrian, Darwinian evolutionists are forced to postulate an unknown ancestor further back in time: "They had to come from somewhere," Strausfeld remarks. "Now the search is on." That sounds like the same challenge Charles Darwin gave fossil hunters 154 years ago to find the ancestors of the Cambrian animals.

The difficulty? It requires many different tissue types and interconnected systems to operate a complex animal like Alalcomenaeus, with its body segments, eyes, claws, mouth parts, gut and nervous system with a brain, to say nothing of coordinating the developmental programs that build these systems from a single cell. That is the major problem that Stephen Meyer emphasizes in Darwin's Doubt: where does the information come from to build complex body plans with hierarchical levels of organization?


Slamming a space rock at the Earth is hardly a plausible source of information. Meyer has been answering in detail the most serious and scholarly critique of his book, by Charles Marshall, refuting Marshall's criticisms point by point. Meanwhile the proposed alternative explanations for the Cambrian event keep coming, bearing increasingly the marks of desperation.

When the original technologist holds court.

Intelligent Designs in Nature Make Engineers Envious
Evolution News & Views

We've reported numerous times about the vibrant field of biomimetics: the science of imitating nature. There are whole departments at universities dedicated to this. There are journals like Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, the Journal of Biomimetics, Biomaterials, and Tissue Engineering, and Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology that regularly report on it. Entrepreneurs have started companies to build products mimicking nature. Biomimetics is on a roll. Here are a few of scientists' latest attempts to copy nature's designs. They wouldn't try so hard if the designs weren't intelligent.

Flight on the Small Scale

A news item from the University of Alabama shows Dr. Amy Lang studiously gazing at a Monarch butterfly on the wing. She has reason to stay focused. She just got a $280,000 grant from the National Science Foundation to study the scales on butterfly wings to find ways to improve flight aerodynamics for MAVs (micro area vehicles).

Butterflies don't require the scales to fly, but Dr. Lang knows they help the insects fly better. "The butterfly scales are beautifully arranged on the wing, and how the scales are arranged is where the aerodynamic benefit comes in," she says. This "unique micro pattern ... reduces drag and likely increases thrust and lift during flapping and glided flight." When the scales are removed, the butterfly has to flap its wings 10 percent more to maintain the same flight.

If you've seen Metamorphosis: The Beauty and Design of Butterflies you may recall the striking electron micrographs of the tiny scales, each less than a tenth of a millimeter in width, arranged like shingles on a roof. According to Dr. Lang, there's a reason: "the scales stick up slightly, trapping a ball of air under the scale and allowing air to flow smoothly over it." Her team wants to understand the physics behind this design before trying to model it on artificial flyers.

The article assumes butterflies happened upon these "evolutionary adaptations" by blind, unguided processes: "The scales covering butterfly and moth wings represent about 190 million years of natural selection for insect flight efficiency." Metamorphosis refutes that notion, but what matters in the story is not evolution, but design -- here is a natural design that the NSF feels is worth at least $280,000 to try to imitate. (Dr. Lang also "works with shark scales" in her "bio-designed engineering" lab.)

It's a Bird; It's a Plane; It's Robo Raven

You met nano-hummingbird in Illustra's film Flight: The Genius of Birds. Now here's Robo Raven, a flying drone built at the University of Maryland -- the first Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) using flapping flight. We've noted this briefly before. A video clip shows how Robo Raven III uses sunlight from solar panels built into its wings to charge batteries.

Nature, as usual, does it better. The Robo Raven III can only gather about 30 watts -- an order of magnitude too low to stay aloft indefinitely, IEEE Spectrum says, pointing out that real ravens get "crazy high power density" from meat. On his blog, Professor S. K. Gupta of the UMass design team compares performance between the two, noting that his invention also mimics another natural technology -- solar energy collection by plants:

However, nature has a significant edge over engineered system in other areas. For example, one gram of meat stores 20 times more energy than one gram of the current battery technology. So in terms of the energy density, we engineers have a lot of catching up to do. In nature, solar energy collection devices (e.g., trees) are not on-board ravens. Hence, ravens ultimately utilize a large collection area to gather energy into highly a dense storage source (e.g., meat), giving them a much longer range and better endurance than Robo Raven III. (Emphasis added.)

While Gupta notes that direct solar energy conversion to mechanical energy would be about an order of magnitude more efficient than an animal's metabolic pathway, "We still need to make significant improvements in solar cell efficiency and battery energy density to replicate the endurance of real ravens in Robo Raven III," he confesses. Real ravens also use that metabolism to perform many functions besides flapping flight -- including reproduction, navigation, and the operation of multiple senses. (Living birds can also fly at night.)

Short Takes

Solar power: "Inspired by nature: To maximise the efficiency of solar cells of the future, physicists are taking a leaf out of nature's book" (Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge).
Robotics: "Amber 2 robot walks with a human gait." Why is that good? "People are able to walk so smoothly because of the seamless interaction between the muscles, bone, ligaments, etc. in the legs, ankles and feet ... Getting a robot to walk like us means not just building legs, ankles or feet like ours, it means programming them all to work together in way that is graceful when the robot walks, and that appears to be where the Amber 2 team is headed" (PhysOrg reporting on work at Texas A&M).
Sonar: An engineer was watching a nature show and wondered why dolphins blew bubbles to trap fish, when it would seemingly mess up their sonar signals. He found that the dolphins use two click frequencies that allow them to distinguish between the bubbles and fish. This "inspired the development of a cheap, coin-sized radar gadget that can sense hidden electronics" (New Scientist, reporting on work at University of Southampton).
Does Darwin-Talk Add Value?

Occasionally, news stories like these attribute the designs in question to natural selection. "Through billions of years of evolution, life on Earth has found intricate solutions to many of the problems scientists are currently grappling with," the item from Cambridge says. But then, most of the story marvels at the intricate design that blind nature supposedly arrived at.

Biology has evolved phenomenally subtle systems to funnel light energy around and channel it to the right places. It has also become incredibly good at building tiny devices that work with high efficiency, and at replicating them millions of times.

Similarly, New Scientist ends its biodesign story with: "Evolution has once again sparked ideas for remarkable innovation."
The Darwin language gets to be as annoying as those pop-up ads on the Internet that have nothing to do with the story. The focus is on design -- "intricate solutions" so good, they occupy the best minds in the world's finest academic institutions; designs so attractive, they are worth six-figure government grants to imitate.


You wouldn't want to insult bioengineers with the suggestion they are mimicking blind, unguided processes in their work. No, from our uniform experience, a good design comes from a good mind.