Random mutations are Darwinism's main ally?

 BioLogos, Broken Genes, and Urate Oxidase

Cornelius G Hunter 

Arguments for evolution, the theory that the biological world arose strictly by chance and natural law, are at a high level. The details of how microbes, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and the rest actually were created by random mutations are hard to come by. But, evolutionists explain, the species look like they evolved. Don’t the comparisons of their anatomy, geographical locations, and so forth, make evolution the obvious explanation for their origin? One of the strongest such evidences, according to Evolutionists such as Dennis Venema, are the so-called shared-errors. Meaningless or, better yet, harmful mutations found in allied species seem to be obvious signs of a common ancestor. For we would never expect such harmful mutations to have arisen independently. They must derive from a common ancestor. This argument has many problems and seems to be another example of how the stronger that an argument is for evolution, the more deeply it is flawed.

One of the problems with this argument is that it cont assumptions.

First, the argument assumes that these mutations are meaningless or harmful. That assumption may well be true but, as any historian of evolutionary thought knows, it is a dangerous. The history of evolutionary thought is full of claims of bad, inefficient, useless designs which, upon further research were found to be, in fact, quite useful.

Second, the argument assumes that these mutations are random. In other words, it assumes there cannot be any common mechanisms, properly operating or otherwise, which could tend toward certain designs and mutations.

In fact convergence is ubiquitous and rampant in biology. Repeated designs appear in species so distant that, according to evolutionary theory, their common ancestor could not have had that design. So even evolutionists must agree that common designs must have arisen independently. And this must have occurred many times over, at both the morphological and molecular levels.

In other instances, such “convergence” must have occurred even in allied species. In fact this is true even for the so-called harmful mutations. For instance, evolutionists believe the urate oxidase enzyme, which catalyzes the oxidation of uric acid, was inactivated in humans and the great apes by harmful random mutations. But the different versions of the gene, in the different species, do not easily align with the expected evolutionary pattern. In fact, even Evolutionists have to agree that several of the various inferred mutations, in these similar species, could not have arisen from a common ancestor. Instead, they must have arisen independently:

                             One exceptional change is a duplicated segment of GGGATGCC in intron 4 which is shared by the gorilla and the orangutan. However, because this change is phylogenetically incompatible with any of the three possible sister-relationships among the closely related trio of the human, the chimpanzee, and the gorilla, it might result from two independent duplications. Alternatively, though less likely, a single duplication occurred in the ancestral species of the great apes and had been polymorphic for a sufficiently long time to permit fixation of the duplicated form in the orangutan and the gorilla on one hand and loss in the human and the chimpanzee on the other hand.

The nonsense mutation (TGA) at codon 107 is, however, more complicated than others. It occurs in the gorilla, the orangutan, and the gibbon, and therefore requires multiple origins of this nonsense mutation.

In contrast, the exon 3 mutation is not shared by H. syndactylus but by the gorilla and the orangutan. The origin of this mutation is therefore multiple and relatively recent in the gibbon lineage.

In other words, when common mutations found in different species cannot easily be explained by common descent, evolutionists do not hesitate to explain them as a consequent of multiple, independent events. This means that, even according evolutionists, similar mutations in allied species do not imply or require common descent. This contradicts the shared-error argument that is supposed to be one of the most powerful evidences for evolution. Unfortunately evolutionists do not include this information in their presentations of the shared-error argument.

The stronger that an argument is for evolution, the more deeply it is flawed.

The biblical case for an old earth.

 The Sixth Creation Day: Biblical Support for Old-Earth Creationism: 

  

Is there biblical support for an ancient Earth? Guest author Travis Campbell makes a compelling argument for old-earth creationism from the sixth day of creation and addresses common young-earth counterarguments.

This is an interesting time in which to be a seeker of truth. We have more reasons to believe in God today than at any other time in the modern era thanks to confirmed facts of nature such as the big bang and anthropic principle. Moreover, the evidence reveals not just any deity, but points specifically to the God of the Bible. Substantiation for the biblical God is set forth in creation’s magnificent display. These evidences, which are anticipated in the biblical record, provide the church with a powerful apologetic, not only for what C. S. Lewis famously called “mere Christianity,” but also for the historical doctrine of inerrancy.

Yet, evidence from big bang cosmology and the anthropic principle, compelling though it is, often meets with rejection from those committed to a young-earth position. Any scenario that entails a 13.7-billion-year-old cosmos is incompatible with a view that dates the universe at 6,000–10,000 years old (based largely on Archbishop James Ussher’s biblical chronology, which calculates a creation date of October 23, 4004, BC).

Young-earth creationists generally refuse to accept the scientific arguments for an ancient cosmos and Earth, even though there is solid biblical support for an old-earth as well. This paper aims to outline a major scriptural argument for old-earth creationism (OEC) and then to address common young-earth criticisms of that argument.

On the Sixth Day

One of the most powerful arguments in favor of the day-age (old-earth) interpretation of the Genesis creation account is what we might call the argument from the sixth day. Put simply, too many events occurred on creation day 6 to be squeezed into 24 hours. Following the overview of creation described in Genesis 1:1–2:4, we read a detailed recap of the sixth day from man’s point of view in Genesis 2:5–25. Together, the two descriptions tell us that on day 6 alone God:

created a host of creatures to live and flourish on the land (Genesis 1:24–25);

created human beings (Genesis 1:26–29)—albeit in two stages, the first one being the formation of the man (Adam) out of the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7);

planted a garden in Eden (Genesis 2:8);

caused trees and plants to grow in the Garden of Eden in accordance with the same ordinary providence He exercised over creation from the beginning (Genesis 2:9; cf. Genesis 1:11–12, 2:5);

placed Adam in the Garden (Genesis 2:15) and appointed him as its keeper;

made a covenant with Adam (Genesis 2:16–17; cf. Hosea 6:7);

recognized that Adam was alone and noted that this was not a good state of affairs (Genesis 2:18);

introduced Adam to the animals, and allowed him to name them (Genesis 2:19–20);

put the man to sleep, made a woman (Eve) from a part of Adam’s side, and then brought her to Adam (Genesis 2:21–22).

Another support for the day-age view is Adam’s reaction to Eve. When he saw her for the first time, he exclaimed, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:23, NASB). The Hebrew phrase translated “this is now” (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB) is happa’am, which other Bible versions render as “this one at last” (NET, HCSB) and “this at last” (ESV, NRSV). This word choice seems to imply that Adam searched for more than 24 hours to find a mate of his own. As the 2001 New English Translation explains on page 29, note 13, “The expression [happa’am] conveys the futility of the man while naming the animals and finding no one who corresponded to him.”

Given Adam’s expression, plus the sheer number of day 6 events, there is good reason to believe that the creation days were not limited to 24 hours each. Old Testament scholars such as Gleason Archer and John Collins,1 cultural apologists such as Francis Schaeffer,2 cumulative-case apologists such as Kenneth Samples,3 systematic theologians such as Norman Geisler,4 and science apologists such as Hugh Ross5 have been persuaded by this line of reasoning. This particular argument for long creation days was also accepted by renowned, late-nineteenth-century Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck.6

Of course, young-earth creationists are familiar with these arguments for the day-age view and they do raise objections to them. In particular, I will address Jonathan Sarfati’s response to the sixth day issue, which represents a common YEC defense.

Young-Earth Objections: Happa’am

 In his book Refuting Compromise, Sarfati contends that the use of happa’am does not indicate that a significant amount of time passed before Adam met Eve. Specifically, he argues:

Although [Hugh] Ross claims this [happa’am] is “usually translated as ‘now at length’ [or ‘at last’],” this is simply not supported by major translations such as the KJV, NKJV, NIV, or NASB. Nor is it supported by other parts of the Bible. Rather, the lexicons show that while pa‘am has a variety of meanings, and is most often translated “time,” with the definite article it means “this time.”7

Both of these claims are false. First, although the translations Sarfati does mention all render happa’am as “this is now,” he fails to take into consideration the ESV, NRSV, JPSV, and HCSB. As I pointed out above, these versions of Scripture translate happa’am either as “this at last” or “this one at last.” But even the phrase “this is now” does not automatically exclude the possibility that Adam searched for a suitable companion for far longer than a 24-hour day.

Second, uses of happa’am in other parts of the Bible do, in fact, suggest that the phrase may indicate a long passage of time. For example, consider Judges 16:18a (ESV):

When Delilah saw that he [Samson] had told her all his heart, she sent and called the lords of the Philistines, saying, ‘Come up again, for he has told me all his heart.’

The Hebrew phrase for “come up again” is ‘ǎlû happa’am and can also be translated “[come] now, at length” (The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon), “come one more time” (HCSB), and “come up at last” (my translation). To paraphrase, Delilah essentially said, “Finally you can come up here, for Samson has at last told me his secret.” The narrative context supports this interpretation. It took Delilah awhile to convince Samson to give in and tell her the secret of his strength (all to his undoing, of course).

Another example is Genesis 46:30, in which Jacob, reunited with Joseph, declared, “Now [happa’am] let me die, since I have seen your face and know that you are still alive” (ESV). The NRSV reads “I can die now [happa’am]” and the HCSB, “At last [happa’am] I can die.” Again, context clearly indicates a long time (years in this case) had passed since Jacob had last seen Joseph. Other examples include Genesis 29:34–35, 30:20, and Judges 15:3.

Furthermore, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon renders happa’am in Genesis 2:23 as “now at length,” as it does with the other texts referenced above.8 Thus, even if Sarfati correctly interprets happa’am differently in other contexts, as he does in Genesis 18:32 and Judges 6:39,9 he still has not refuted the OEC exegesis of Adam’s use of happa’am.10

Young-Earth Objections: Naming of the Animals

As demonstrated earlier, creation day 6 included a large amount of activity, both on God’s part and on Adam’s. It seems intuitive to assume that all of these events could not take place within 24 hours. Specifically, I would like to focus on the timeline of one activity that young-earth and old-earth creationists disagree on: Adam’s naming of the animals.

In a debate on the age of the universe, young-earth proponent Jason Lisle acknowledged that, of all the day 6 tasks, Adam’s naming of the animals is a problem for his view (though not insurmountable).11 Sarfati, on the other hand, does not view it as a difficulty for YEC. He writes:

Scripture explicitly states that Adam named all the “livestock” (…behemah), the “birds of the air” (…‘ôph hashamayim), and all the “beasts of the field” (…chayyah hassadeh). There is no indication that Adam named the fish in the sea, or any other marine organisms, nor any of the insects, beetles, or arachnids. So, like the ark’s obligate passengers, there was only a tiny fraction of all the kinds of animals. Furthermore, the animals Adam had to name were even fewer—Genesis 2:20 omits “creeping things” (…remes, reptile), and the “beasts of the field” are a subset of the “beasts of the earth” of Genesis 1:24. Combining both facts—that “kinds” are broader than species, and that there was only a small subset of all kinds—there are probably only a few thousand animals involved at most.…Even if we assume that Adam had to name as many as 2,500 kinds of animals, if he took five seconds per kind, and took a five-minute break every hour, he could have completed the task in well under four hours.This hardly seems onerous even for people today, and with Adam’s pre-Fall stamina and memory recall abilities, the problem disappears totally.12

If five seconds per animal or animal kind seems an incredibly fast pace, consider that the young-earth view requires compressing the time span of the naming task in order accommodate all the other events of day six. Even one minute per animal would have consumed too much time. On top of that, it’s likely these activities were limited to daylight hours only—for God ended His creative activity at “the evening” of each day, a work ethic that humanity emulates (Genesis 1:27–31; cf. Exodus 20:8–11; Psalm 104:23). Hence, according to the young-earth view, every activity mentioned in Genesis 2:5–25 must have occurred within 12 hours approximately.13

Sarfati’s explanation for the naming of the animals faces several difficulties that, in turn, reinforce the reasonableness of the old-earth view. I will address three of these challenges.

Finding the Animals

While Genesis 2:19 clearly tells us that God brought the animals to Adam to be named, the account is thin on specifics. It is possible that God literally lined up the animals single file and Adam subsequently named them in that order. However, it seems more plausible that God led Adam to the animals’ environments and, in those places, creatures were brought forward to be given a name. There are, after all, famous examples of God bringing a person into a seeker’s presence (Genesis 24:10–21). Perhaps the Lord brought the animals to Adam as he sought a companion for himself. After all, Genesis 2:20 tells us “there was not found a helper fit for him” (italics added),14 suggesting that Adam was seeking each of these creatures out, without finding what he was looking for.

Meaningful Names

Even if we grant that God lined up the animals parade style, we must ask, does it seem reasonable to think that Adam limited himself to only five seconds per animal? Picture Adam glancing at each creature—taking no time to observe or even touch them —and uttering whatever name came to mind first before quickly moving on. Such a scenario strains credulity to a breaking point.

Few Bible students need to be told the importance of names in Hebrew culture. The name of a child often reflected his or her character, just as the name of the Lord, YHWH, is a reflection of His nature. The Jewish practice of waiting until the eighth day of a boy’s life (the day of his circumcision) to give him his name has deep roots grounded in the story of Abram, whose name God Himself changed to Abraham as they made a covenant together (Genesis 17:9–14; Luke 1:57–66). The patience and care the Hebrews took in naming their children reflected the importance they attached to names in general. So, it is not unreasonable to think that the ancient Hebrews would have been astonished, as we are, at the thought that Adam spent a mere five seconds naming the animals.

While I would not press the point that Adam spent eight days per animal, I do think it’s reasonable to believe he spent at least two or three days naming each creature. Even if I granted the low-end numbers proposed by some young-earth creationists (i.e., 1,000 animals)15 and limited Adam’s time to one to two hours per animal (a very reasonable assumption), that still reaches well over 24 hours.

Naming the Serpent

As a specific example of meaningful animal names, consider the description of the serpent in Genesis 3:1b (ESV), “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.” In Hebrew, “serpent” is nāḥāsh, meaning “copper or bronze,”16 which may be an allusion to the animal’s shiny scales or color. This noun is related etymologically to the verb nāḥash which, in turn, is related to the noun naḥash, which means “divination or enchantment.”17 The picture painted in Genesis 3:1b, then, is a shiny or copper-colored creature, suggesting something beautiful, that is also enchanting (as in crafty), implying that the creature can be deceptive in certain respects (2 Corinthians 11:14). Thus, the fact that the name fits the description in Genesis 3:1 indicates that it reflects the animal’s behavior.

While we don’t know what language Adam spoke, we are told that he named all of the beasts of the field (Genesis 2:20), and since the serpent is listed as a beast of the field, it’s possible that Adam at least influenced the serpent’s Hebrew name. This idea raises the question, how would Adam possess this understanding of the serpent? The only reasonable explanation seems to be that Adam took his time observing the creature, studying its behavior, and named it accordingly. And if this is true of the serpent, it would easily be true of all the animals Adam named. He carefully observed each and every animal he discovered as he searched for a suitable helper throughout the land of Eden; and after a good while of study and observation, he gave each creature its name in accordance with its behavior.

Critics of this theory may insist that the description of the serpent comes from the narrator’s (Moses) perspective, not from Adam’s. However, since the descriptive name predates Moses, and the name ultimately came from Adam himself (whether in Hebrew or some other tongue), I think it is more plausible than not that Genesis 3:1 reflects Adam’s perspective as well.18

I’d suggest that Adam’s naming of the serpent also sheds light on Paul’s words to Timothy, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2:13–14, ESV). Paul’s point, of course, was not to excuse Adam from sin (cf. Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:22). Rather, if anything, he was informing Timothy that Adam’s sin was all the more culpable than Eve’s—she could have claimed some ignorance, while he had absolutely no excuses. Why was Adam not deceived? Because he had an adequate knowledge of the serpent’s capabilities. How did he possess such knowledge? Because he had studied the creature and given it its name.

Superhuman Abilities

A final and vital point to address is Sarfati’s argument—not uncommon among young-earth creationists—that Adam possessed superhuman capabilities before the fall. Sarfati contests these “greater abilities would give Adam greater speed at accomplishing his tasks.”19 I have two responses to this point.

First, nothing in Scripture suggests Adam possessed superhuman qualities. Too little is written about him to come to this conclusion. And, if we are allowed to speculate at all about Adam’s capabilities, the Bible itself gives us the grid through which we are to understand him, namely through the second “Adam,” Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:45). Like the first Adam, Christ was innocent of sin, righteous, and pure. Scripture tells us that the second Adam was like us humans in all things, including physical and mental capabilities, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Thus, we can conclude then that pre-fall Adam was also like us average humans in all things (except sin).

Furthermore, the gospels never depict Christ doing anything at superhuman speeds. In fact, His miracles are themselves done patiently, without any hint of rushing through the moment. Jesus’s miracles were not done in His own power as the Son of God; rather as a man He rested in the power of the Spirit to do the Father’s will—thereby giving us an example to follow.20 Therefore, there is no reason to think Adam possessed superhuman capabilities that gave him the power to perform his tasks at tremendous speeds.

Second, even if Adam did possess superhuman abilities, it still would not be relevant to the issue at hand. One of the problems I have with the YEC interpretation of the sixth day of creation is that it rushes Adam and leaves him no chance to enjoy what he is doing. As New Testament professor Vern Poythress helpfully notes in his book Redeeming Science, the YEC reading of this text presupposes a clock orientation embedded in the creation-week, wherein the passing of time is oriented to ticks on a watch.21 It is difficult to read Genesis 2 from such a perspective without envisioning God holding a stopwatch, as it were, and hurrying Adam through his tasks—as if it must all get done before the Sun goes down!

The pace envisioned by the YEC reading has a modern tone to it and fails to appreciate what Poythress calls an “interactive orientation”22 that seems to better capture Adam’s perspective as he performed his duties before the Lord. This type of orientation is one of rhythm, not ticks;23 relationships, not regulations; serenity and concord, not bustle and unrest. It is an orientation where Adam absorbed himself in his task, built relationships with the animals he named, and constantly found himself in jaw-dropping awe over each and every creature he discovered. Superhuman capabilities would have been insufficient to motivate Adam to rush through his tasks; but curiosity alone would have been sufficient to move him to slow down and enjoy the wonderful gifts of God.

Thus, we end our discussion of this topic with the insightful analysis offered by pastor and author Kent Hughes:

The considerable menagerie was likely drawn from Eden rather than from the entire earth. Even so, the process would have been daunting. And whereas before God had been the namer of creation, conferring the names “Day” and “Night” and “Earth” as an indication of his sovereignty over creation, now Adam performed the sovereign naming function. The process challenged Adam’s intellectual capacities. Naming demanded acquaintance and understanding of the animals. It was not a whimsical process of reviewing a ten-mile pet parade and saying, “Um, let’s see…I’ve got it! Aardvark! Ah…Chimpanzee. Oh yes, Zebra. There, you’re Pelican. I like that.”…No, Adam wasn’t Dr. Doolittle on amphetamines. The classic work of Keil and Delitzsch points out that we must not regard the names that Adam gave the animals as merely denoting their outward characteristics, “but as a deep and direct insight into the nature of the animals,” which penetrated far deeper than knowledge that comes from simple reflection. As Adam fulfilled his kingly responsibility of interpreting the animals for what they were and giving them appropriate names, his differentiating power became acute. He saw there was none that corresponded to him. In the process he also realized that many of the animals had a social companionship that he lacked. So Adam began to long for companionship with a being like himself. It is reasonable to surmise that the man began to ache for a corresponding other. God was preparing him to value his helper.24

Conclusion

This paper has looked at two important issues surrounding the argument from the sixth day—namely, that Adam must have taken longer than 24 hours to name every animal God brought before him and that his words to Eve (“at long last!”) suggest he was significantly older than 24 hours when he finally met his wife. Having looked at a popular critique of the OEC appeal to these particular points, I conclude that the argument from the sixth day still stands, both as a powerful critique of the calendar-day perspective as well as a strong argument for the day-age interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

These are not the only considerations a day-age theorist can offer in support of the argument from the sixth day. And, of course, this argument is only one of many biblical proofs of the day-age theory. That said, my hope is that the little I have written on this topic will encourage those who have called old-earth creationists “compromisers” to think twice before doing so again.

****

By Travis Campbell

Dr. Travis James Campbell received his PhD in philosophical theology from Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) in 2004, and currently serves as a history teacher at Deerfield-Windsor School in Albany, GA. 

Human exceptionalism:dead,buried,forgotten?

Let God be found true.

 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One

Why It Matters; What the Evidence Shows 

Watchtower 1/10/2011

This is the first of two articles in consecutive issues of The Watchtower that discuss scholarly questions surrounding the date of the destruction of ancient Jerusalem. This two-part series presents thoroughly researched and Bible-based answers to questions that have puzzled some readers.

“According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction.*Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.? What is your basis for this date?”

SO WROTE one of our readers. But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. One historian said that it led to “a catastrophe, indeed the ultimate catastrophe.” The date marked the end of a temple that had been at the heart of the worship of Almighty God for more than 400 years. “O God,” lamented a Bible psalmist, “they have dishonored your holy temple. They have left Jerusalem in ruins.”—Psalm 79:1, God’s Word Bible.*

Second, because knowing the actual year when this “ultimate catastrophe” began and understanding how the restoration of true worship in Jerusalem fulfilled a precise Bible prophecy will build your confidence in the reliability of God’s Word. So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself.

“Seventy Years” for Whom?

Years before the destruction, the Jewish prophet Jeremiah provided an essential clue to the time frame given in the Bible. He warned “all those living in Jerusalem,” saying: “This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:1, 2, 11, New International Version) The prophet later added: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.’” (Jeremiah 29:10) What is the significance of the “seventy years”? And how does this time period help us to determine the date of Jerusalem’s destruction?

Instead of saying 70 years “at Babylon,” many translations read “for Babylon.” (NIV) Some historians therefore claim that this 70-year period applies to the Babylonian Empire. According to secular chronology, the Babylonians dominated the land of ancient Judah and Jerusalem for some 70 years, from about 609 B.C.E. until 539 B.C.E. when the capital city of Babylon was captured.

The Bible, however, shows that the 70 years were to be a period of severe punishment from God—aimed specifically at the people of Judah and Jerusalem, who were in a covenant to obey him. (Exodus 19:3-6) When they refused to turn from their bad ways, God said: “I will summon . . . Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon . . . against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations.” (Jeremiah 25:4, 5, 8, 9, NIV) While nearby nations would also suffer Babylon’s wrath, the destruction of Jerusalem and the 70-year exile to follow were called by Jeremiah “the punishment of my people,” for Jerusalem had “sinned greatly.”—Lamentations 1:8; 3:42; 4:6, NIV.

So according to the Bible, the 70 years was a period of bitter punishment for Judah, and God used the Babylonians as the instrument for inflicting this severe chastisement. Yet, God told the Jews: “When seventy years are completed, . . . I will . . . bring you back to this place”—the land of Judah and Jerusalem.—Jeremiah 29:10, NIV.

When Did “the Seventy Years” Start?

The inspired historian Ezra, who lived after the 70 years of Jeremiah’s prophecy were fulfilled, wrote of King Nebuchadnezzar: “He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power. The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.”—2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, NIV.

Thus, the 70 years were to be a period when the land of Judah and Jerusalem would enjoy “sabbath rests.” This meant that the land would not be cultivated—there would be no sowing of seed or pruning of vineyards. (Leviticus 25:1-5, NIV) Because of the disobedience of God’s people, whose sins may have included a failure to observe all the Sabbath years, the punishment was that their land would remain unworked and deserted for 70 years.—Leviticus 26:27, 32-35, 42, 43.

When did the land of Judah become desolated and unworked? Actually, the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem twice, years apart. When did the 70 years commence? Certainly not following the first time that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. Why not? Although at that time Nebuchadnezzar took many captives from Jerusalem to Babylon, he left others behind in the land. He also left the city itself standing. For years after this initial deportation, those left remaining in Judah, “the lowly class of the people,” lived off their land. (2 Kings 24:8-17) But then things drastically changed.

A Jewish revolt brought the Babylonians back to Jerusalem. (2 Kings 24:20; 25:8-10) They razed the city, including its sacred temple, and they took many of its inhabitants captive to Babylon. Within two months, “all the people [who had been left behind in the land] from the least to the greatest, together with the army officers, fled to Egypt for fear of the Babylonians.” (2 Kings 25:25, 26, NIV) Only then, in the seventh Jewish month, Tishri (September/October), of that year could it be said that the land, now desolate and unworked, began to enjoy its Sabbath rest. To the Jewish refugees in Egypt, God said through Jeremiah: “You have seen all the disaster that I brought upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities of Judah. Behold, this day they are a desolation, and no one dwells in them.” (Jeremiah 44:1, 2, English Standard Version) So this event evidently marked the starting point of the 70 years. And what year was that? To answer, we need to see when that period ended.

When Did “the Seventy Years” End?

The prophet Daniel, who lived until “the kingdom of Persia came to power,” was on the scene in Babylon, and he calculated when the 70 years were due to end. He wrote: “I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.”—Daniel 9:1, 2, ESV.

Ezra reflected on the prophecies of Jeremiah and linked the end of “the seventy years” to the time when “the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation.” (2 Chronicles 36:21, 22, NIV) When were the Jews released? The decree ending their exile was issued in “the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia.” (See the box “A Pivotal Date in History.”) Thus, by the fall of 537 B.C.E., the Jews had returned to Jerusalem to restore true worship.—Ezra 1:1-5; 2:1; 3:1-5.

According to Bible chronology, then, the 70 years was a literal period of time that ended in 537 B.C.E. Counting back 70 years, the start date of the period would be 607 B.C.E.

But if the evidence from the inspired Scriptures clearly points to 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction, why do many authorities hold to the date 587 B.C.E.? They lean on two sources of information—the writings of classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy. Are these sources more reliable than the Scriptures? Let us see.

Classical Historians—How Accurate?

Historians who lived close to the time when Jerusalem was destroyed give mixed information about the Neo-Babylonian kings.* (See the box “Neo-Babylonian Kings.”) The time line based on their chronological information disagrees with that of the Bible. But just how reliable are their writings?

One of the historians who lived closest to the Neo-Babylonian period was Berossus, a Babylonian “priest of Bel.” His original work, the Babyloniaca,written about 281 B.C.E., has been lost, and only fragments are preserved in the works of other historians. Berossus claimed that he used “books which had been preserved with great care at Babylon.”1 Was Berossus really an accurate historian? Consider one example.

Berossus wrote that Assyrian King Sennacherib followed “the reign of [his] brother”; and “after him his son [Esarhaddon ruled for] 8 years; and thereafter Sammuges [Shamash-shuma-ukin] 21 years.” (III, 2.1, 4) However, Babylonian historical documents written long before Berossus’ time say that Sennacherib followed his father, Sargon II, not his brother, to the throne; Esarhaddon ruled for 12 years, not 8; and Shamash-shuma-ukin ruled for 20 years, not 21. Scholar R. J. van der Spek, while acknowledging that Berossus consulted the Babylonian chronicles, wrote: “This did not prevent him from making his own additions and interpretations.”2

How do other scholars view Berossus? “In the past Berossus has usually been viewed as a historian,” states S. M. Burstein, who made a thorough study of Berossus’ works. Yet, he concluded: “Considered as such his performance must be pronounced inadequate. Even in its present fragmentary state the Babyloniaca contains a number of surprising errors of simple fact . . . In a historian such flaws would be damning, but then Berossus’ purpose was not historical.”3

In view of the foregoing, what do you think? Should Berossus’ calculations really be viewed as consistently accurate? And what about the other classical historians who, for the most part, based their chronology on the writings of Berossus? Can their historical conclusions really be called reliable?

The Canon of Ptolemy

The Royal Canon of Claudius Ptolemy, a second-century C.E. astronomer, is also used to support the traditional date 587 B.C.E. Ptolemy’s list of kings is considered the backbone of the chronology of ancient history, including the Neo-Babylonian period.

Ptolemy compiled his list some 600 years after the Neo-Babylonian period ended. So how did he determine the date when the first king on his list began to reign? Ptolemy explained that by using astronomical calculations based in part on eclipses, “we have derived to compute back to the beginning of the reign of Nabonassar,” the first king on his list.4 Thus, Christopher Walker of the British Museum says that Ptolemy’s canon was “an artificial scheme designed to provide astronomers with a consistent chronology” and was “not to provide historians with a precise record of the accession and death of kings.”5

“It has long been known that the Canon is astronomically reliable,” writes Leo Depuydt, one of Ptolemy’s most enthusiastic defenders, “but this does not automatically mean that it is historically dependable.” Regarding this list of kings, Professor Depuydt adds: “As regards the earlier rulers [who included the Neo-Babylonian kings], the Canon would need to be compared with the cuneiform record on a reign by reign basis.”6

What is this “cuneiform record” that enables us to measure the historical accuracy of Ptolemy’s canon? It includes the Babylonian chronicles, lists of kings, and economic tablets—cuneiform documents written by scribes who lived during, or near, Neo-Babylonian times.7

How does Ptolemy’s list compare with that cuneiform record? The box“How Does Ptolemy’s Canon Compare With Ancient Tablets?” (see below) shows a portion of the canon and compares this with an ancient cuneiform document. Notice that Ptolemy lists only four kings between the Babylonian rulers Kandalanu and Nabonidus. However, the Uruk King List—a part of the cuneiform record—reveals that seven kings ruled in between. Were their reigns brief and negligible? One of them, according to cuneiform economic tablets, ruled for seven years.8

There is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of Nabopolassar (the first king of the Neo-Babylonian period), another king (Ashur-etel-ilani) ruled for four years in Babylonia. Also, for more than a year, there was no king in the land.9 Yet, all of this is left out of Ptolemy’s canon.

Why did Ptolemy omit some rulers? Evidently, he did not consider them to be legitimate rulers of Babylon.10 For example, he excluded Labashi-Marduk, a Neo-Babylonian king. But according to cuneiform documents, the kings whom Ptolemy omitted actually ruled over Babylonia.

In general, Ptolemy’s canon is regarded as accurate. But in view of its omissions, should it really be used to provide a definite historical chronology?

The Conclusion Based on This Evidence

To sum up: The Bible clearly states that there was an exile of 70 years. There is strong evidence—and most scholars agree—that the Jewish exiles were back in their homeland by 537 B.C.E. Counting back from that year would place Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E. Though the classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy disagree with this date, valid questions can be raised about the accuracy of their writings. Really, those two lines of evidence hardly provide enough proof to overturn the Bible’s chronology.

However, further questions remain. Is there really no historical evidence to support the Bible-based date of 607 B.C.E.? What evidence is revealed by datable cuneiform documents, many of which were written by ancient eyewitnesses? We will consider these questions in our next issue.

Footnote 

A PIVOTAL DATE IN HISTORY

The date 539 B.C.E. when Cyrus II conquered Babylon is calculated using the testimony of:

▪ Ancient historical sources and cuneiform tablets: Diodorus of Sicily (c. 80-20 B.C.E.) wrote that Cyrus became king of Persia in “the opening year of the Fifty-fifth Olympiad.” (Historical Library, Book IX, 21) That year was 560 B.C.E. The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 485-425 B.C.E.) stated that Cyrus was killed “after he had reigned twenty-nine years,” which would put his death during his 30th year, in 530 B.C.E. (Histories, Book I, Clio, 214) Cuneiform tablets show that Cyrus ruled Babylon for nine years before his death. Thus, nine years prior to his death in 530 B.C.E. takes us back to 539 B.C.E. as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon.

Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus’ death in 530 B.C.E. Though this tablet contains some errors regarding the astronomical positions, it contains the descriptions of two lunar eclipses that the tablet says occurred in the seventh year of Cambyses II, the son and successor of Cyrus. These are identified with lunar eclipses visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E., thus pointing to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of Cambyses’ seventh year. That would make his first regnal year 529 B.C.E. So Cyrus’ last year would have been 530 B.C.E., making 539 B.C.E. his first year of ruling Babylon.

The fossil record vs.the narrative re:the origin of the feather

 Fossil Friday: A Dinosaur Feather and an Overhyped New Study on the Origin of Feathers

Gunter Bechly 

This Fossil Friday features a feather from 100 million-year-old Burmese amber. The age and the strange ribbon-like structure of this fossil feather suggest that it could be a feather of a theropod dinosaur or primitive stem-bird rather than a modern bird (Benton et al. 2019). The fossil was acquired by me some years ago for the amber collection of the Natural History Museum in Stuttgart (Germany), where I worked as scientific curator for amber and fossil insects until 2016. I have already discussed the issue of the origin of birds and feathers in several previous articles on Evolution News (Bechly 2022a, 2022b, 2023). Today, I want to use the occasion to discuss a recent study on the origin of feathers by Cooper & Milinkovitch (2023), which was celebrated as evidence that “tweaking just a few genes transforms scales into feathers” (Starr 2023). The authors boldly claim that their “results indicate that an evolutionary leap — from scales to feathers — does not require large changes in genome composition or expression.“ This is complete hogwash.

And Here Is Why

The scientists injected chicken embryos with molecular triggers that changed the development of reticulate scales on chicken feet into that of ectopic feathers, which means that feathers developed at an abnormal place instead of scales. That‘s all. The mentioned spectacular conclusion from this experiment rests on two hidden assumptions that are both false or at least highly questionable:

Feathers are derived from transformed reptile scales.

The scales on bird feet are primary scales and not reduced feathers.

The first claim was the subject of a long and hot debate in modern biology. Many textbooks still suggest that bird feathers were derived from elongated reptile scales, and this was also promoted by theistic evolutionists Karl Giberson and Francis Collins (2011) in their book The Language of Science and Faith (for a critique see Luskin 2021). However, this still common claim faces several severe problems and no longer represents the consensus view in mainstream science.

One problem is that reptiles are not considered to represent a natural (monophyletic) group and include very diverse and only distantly related taxa such as turtles and tortoises, crocodiles and alligators, and lizards and snakes. These different reptile groups possess very different types of scales (e.g., compare the adjacent scales of a croc with the overlapping scales of a lizard) of dubious and disputed homology. Therefore, the claim that feathers are derived from reptile scales is rather meaningless in the first place. An even more important problem is the ontogeny of feathers, which begin as hollow tubelike filaments, with the feather forming from the disintegration and unfolding of the tube‘s wall, not as elongations of flat scales. Finally, there are significant morphogenetic and molecular differences between the various integumental structures of vertebrates that “for decades, fostered the debate on the homology, or lack thereof, among these skin appendages and led some authors to conclude that homologous skin appendages do not exist beyond amniote classes (reptiles, mammals, and birds); that is, mammalian hair and avian feather would not have evolved from reptilian overlapping scales” (Di-Poï & Milinkovitch 2016).

Common Biological Knowledge

Indeed, the recognition that feathers did not evolve directly from scales has been common biological knowledge for many years and even made it into the prestigious Encyclopedia Britannica, which unequivocally clarifies that “Feathers are complex and novel evolutionary structures. They did not evolve directly from reptilian scales, as once was thought.” An educational site on avian biology by Eastern Kentucky University makes a similarly clear statement: “Feathers, then, are not derived from scales, but, rather, are evolutionary novelties with numerous unique features.” It could hardly be more in your face than that!

                           Nevertheless, new evo-devo research (Di-Poï & Milinkovitch 2016) about the ontogeny of reptile scales, mammal hairs, and bird feathers was misleadingly advertised in popular media reports as “Human hair, bird feathers came from reptile scales” (Panko 2016). However, what this research really showed is a so-called deep homology of these skin structures (Benton et al. 2019), which all ontogenetically derive from thickened patches of skin (called placodes) in embryos. This means that scales, hairs, and feathers share a similar ontogenetic pathway and may share a common origin in an early precursor skin structure, but it does not demonstrate that feathers originated from modified adult reptile scales. Don’t take my word. Here is what the more recent study of Benton et al. (2019) emphasized: “Furthermore, it is inadequate to say that feathers evolved from reptilian scales, as both morphogenesis and CBPs of feathers are basal to those of avian scales, and that the molecular profiles of avian scales are similar to feathers, but different from reptilian scales.”

Concerning the second assumption, there is growing evidence that the scales on bird feet are not primary scales but reduced feathers. Here is a quote from Dhouailly (2009): “Concerning feathers, they may have evolved independently of squamate scales, each originating from the hypothetical roughened beta-keratinized integument of the first sauropsids. The avian overlapping scales, which cover the feet in some bird species, may have developed later in evolution, being secondarily derived from feathers.” Benton et al. (2019) further elaborated: “During theropod evolution, leg feathers became reduced from the foot to thigh, and scales replaced them. Likewise, such scales are present together with hair in a Cretaceous mammal, as well as over the whole body in the pangolin or along the tail in rodents, such as rats and mice. These scales are commonly interpreted as primitive holdovers from reptilian ancestors, but palaeontological and genetic evidence suggests that they are secondarily derived from feathers or hairs.”

Impressive to the Uninformed

We can therefore safely conclude that the new study by Cooper & Milinkovitch (2023) is just the most recent example of overhyped science that only sounds impressive to the uninformed, who neither know that mainstream evolutionary biology no longer supports an evolution of bird feathers from reptile scales, nor know that the scales on bird feet are believed to be reduced feathers. So, it is hardly surprising that a simple mutation can change bird leg scales back into feathers. Misleading research like this is one important reason I have lost faith in the overblown claims of evolutionary biology. It‘s mostly smoke and mirrors.

So, what about the grandiose claim that an “evolutionary leap — from scales to feathers — does not require large changes in genome composition or expression“? This is of course complete rubbish as well. In reality, the creation of feathers, which are the most complex integumental structures known in the animal kingdom, without doubt required coordinated changes in numerous genes.

This is because it involved differences in keratin structure, a sophisticated pattern formation of branches (rami) and subbranches (radii), as well as highly specific programmed cell death that sculpts the feather during ontogeny, and many more biological novelties that required new genetic code. The whole idea that a simple developmental switch could perform this trick is nothing short of ludicrous. What the simple switch does is just reactivate the already existing code for feather formation in a body region with secondarily reduced feathers. This has nothing to do with an evolutionary origin of biological novelty and has zero explanatory power for the origin of feathers. As I said, smoke and mirrors!

References

Bechly G 2022a. Fossil Friday: The Temporal Paradox of Early Birds. Evolution News August 19, 2022. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/fossil-friday-the-temporal-paradox-of-early-birds/

Bechly G 2022b. Educating “Professor Dave” on the Fossil Record and Genetics. Evolution News December 8, 2022. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/12/educating-professor-dave-on-the-fossil-record-and-genetics/

Bechly G 2023. Fossil Friday: A Waiting Time Problem for Feathers. Evolution News March 10, 2023. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/03/fossil-friday-a-waiting-time-problem-for-feathers/

Benton MJ, Dhouailly D, Jiang B & McNamara M 2019. The Early Origin of Feathers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34(9), 856-869. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.04.018

Cooper RL & Milinkovitch MC 2023. Transient agonism of the sonic hedgehog pathway triggers a permanent transition of skin appendage fate in the chicken embryo. Science Advances 9(20), 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adg9619

Di-Poï N & Milinkovitch MC 2016. The anatomical placode in reptile scale morphogenesis indicates shared ancestry among skin appendages in amniotes. Science Advances 2(6), 1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600708

Dhouailly D 2009. A new scenario for the evolutionary origin of hair, feather, and avian scales. Journal of Anatomy 214(4), 587-606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.01041.x

Luskin C 2021. Listen: Scale-to-Feather Evolution Doesn’t Fly. Evolution News October 17, 2021. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/listen-scale-to-feather-evolution-doesnt-fly/

Panko B 2016. Human hair, bird feathers came from reptile scales. Science News June 24, 2016. https://www.science.org/content/article/human-hair-bird-feathers-came-reptile-scales

Starr M 2023. Tweaking Just a Few Genes Transforms Scales Into Feathers. ScienceAlert May 22, 2023. https://www.sciencealert.com/tweaking-just-a-few-genes-transforms-scales-into-feathers

Molecules vs. Darwinism

File under "Well said." XCIII

 "The Wiseman speaks because he has something to say;the fool because he has to say something."

Plato

Rock Bottom?

 Medically assisted deaths could save millions in health care spending: Report

CBC news 

New research suggests medically assisted dying could result in substantial savings across Canada's health-care system.

Doctor-assisted death could reduce annual health-care spending across the country by between $34.7 million and $136.8 million, according to a report published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on Monday.

The savings exceedingly outweigh the estimated $1.5 to $14.8 million in direct costs associated with implementing medically assisted dying.

"The take-away point is that there may be some upfront costs associated with offering medical assisted dying to Canadians, but there may also be a reduction in spending elsewhere in the system and therefore offering medical assistance in dying to Canadians will not cost the health care system anything extra," said Aaron Trachtenberg, an author of the report and a resident in internal medicine at the University of Calgary.

Cost has to be a part of the discussion

The researchers used numbers from the Netherlands and Belgium, where medically assisted death is legal, combined with Canadian spending data from Ontario. Trachtenberg stressed that means the work is theoretical and needs to be readdressed when Canada starts collecting large scale data at home.

After June 17, 2016 when Bill C-14 became law, provinces began rolling out their plans to deal with requests for doctor-assisted death.

Manitoba has set up a Medical Assistance in Dying team (MAID). More than 100 patients have contacted MAID, with 24 receiving medically assisted deaths as of Jan. 6.

"In a resource-limited health care system, anytime we roll out a large intervention there has to be a certain amount of planning and preparation and cost has to be a part of that discussion," Trachtenberg said, adding the provinces' differing plans could impact the cost structure of implementation.

"It's just the reality of working in a system of finite resources."

The report estimated that about one to four per cent of Canadians will die using physician-assisted death. Of those, 50 per cent will be between the ages of 60 and 80.

The report estimates a 50-50 split between men and women. 

About 80 per cent of patients will have cancer and 60 per cent will have their lives shortened by one month while 40 per cent will have their lives shortened by one week.

End-of-life care has high costs in Canada

Health-care costs increase substantially among patients nearing the end of their life, Trachtenberg said.

"Canadians die in hospitals more often than, say, our counterparts in America or Europe and … we have a lack of palliative care services even though we are trying to improve that. And therefore people end up spending their final days in the hospital," he said.

"Hospital-based care costs the health care system more than a comprehensive palliative care system where we could help people achieve their goal of dying at home."

The report used Manitoba as an example, where 20 per cent of health care costs are attributable to patients within the six months before they die, despite their representing only one per cent of the population. Patients who choose medical assistance in dying may forego this resource-intensive period, the report said.

"Whenever we roll out a large-scale intervention there has to be a discussion around costs. But we do not suggest that costs should ever be considered at an individual level," Trachtenberg said.

"We are not suggesting that patients or providers consider costs when making this very personal and intimate decision to request or provide medical assistance in dying."

The report also emphasized that it is only a cost analysis and doesn't include the clinical effects on patients. Patient-level research will need to be done before true economic evaluation of medical assistance in dying in terms of cost-effectiveness and utility can be done, the report said.

Ps. I think it merits repeating that the kinds of hyper-political,lawfare type responses favoured by many can merely manage the symptoms they can never cure the disease.

"Professor"Dave =most clueless of all Q.E.D?

 Hello, Professor Dave: James Tour’s Criticisms of OOL Research Echo Those of Other Experts

Brian Miller 

In several articles we have already deconstructed the debate between Professor James Tour and “Professor” Dave Farina on the state of research about the origin of life (OOL). For example, see my latest, on Farina’s habit of citation bluffing, here. Today, I will address one of the few honest questions Farina and other critics have asked: If Tour’s critique of the field is accurate, why has he not published his arguments in peer-reviewed literature? The answer is simple: Tour’s criticisms and concerns have already been recognized by experts in origins research and published in technical journals. Tour has simply compiled and explained the challenges to the public to expose the disconnect between what the public has been told and the true state of the field. 

Steven Benner

One of the most comprehensive and insightful critiques of origins research is by Steven Benner (2009), a synthetic chemist praised by Farina. Benner’s article “Paradoxes in the Origin of Life” lists five seemingly insurmountable hurdles facing origin-of-life scenarios. I will explain only two. 

The first is termed the Asphalt Paradox. It refers to the tendency of systems of organic molecules to degrade into mixtures of molecules that are useless for life. Benner states:

An enormous amount of empirical data have established, as a rule, that organic systems, given energy and left to themselves, devolve to give uselessly complex mixtures, “asphalts”… Further, chemical theories, including the second law of thermodynamics, bonding theory that describes the “space” accessible to sets of atoms, and structure theory requiring that replication systems occupy only tiny fractions of that space, suggest that it is impossible for any non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the “living.”

Benner goes on to explain why this tendency undermines all potentially viable approaches to explaining even the simplest and earliest steps toward life’s origin:

Such statements of impossibility apply even to macromolecules not assumed to be necessary for RIRI [replication involving replicable imperfections] evolution. Again richly supported by empirical observation, material escapes from known metabolic cycles that might be viewed as models for a “metabolism first” origin of life, making such cycles short-lived. Lipids that provide tidy compartments under the close supervision of a graduate student (supporting a protocell-first model for origins) are quite non-robust with respect to small environmental perturbations, such as a change in the salt concentration, the introduction of organic solvents, or a change in temperature….

Benner labels a second challenge the Information-Need Paradox. It refers to the implausibility of an RNA molecule forming with the information required for it to self-replicate. The central problem is that the probability is miniscule for a random sequence of nucleotides (the building blocks of RNA) to contain the required information for an RNA molecule to perform self-replication or any other complex function required for a minimally complex cell. Benner states:

If a biopolymer is assumed to be necessary for RIRI evolution, we must resolve the paradox arising because implausibly high concentrations of building blocks generate biopolymers having inadequate amounts of information. These propositions from theory and observation also force the conclusion that the emergence of (in this case, biopolymer-based) life is impossible.

At the end of the article, Benner exchanges the hat of an objective scientist for that of a high priest of the secular faith. He encourages his readers not to lose hope that the paradoxes will one day be solved. Yet no discovery since the article’s publication has suggested that the barriers to life’s genesis identified by Benner could ever be overcome.     

Tour’s critique appears far more charitable than Benner’s assessment. Tour simply stated that researchers do not yet have any understanding of how life could have originated. In contrast, Benner stated that the most fundamental theories of science and all experimental evidence point to the origin of life through natural processes being “impossible.”

Elbert Branscomb and Michael Russell

A second key paper is “Frankenstein or a Submarine Alkaline Vent: Who Is Responsible for Abiogenesis?” This two-part article (Part 1, Part 2) was authored by Elbert Branscomb and Michael Russell (2018), who are leaders in the alkaline-vent hypothesis for the origin of life. The article explains why all theories on life’s origin relying solely on natural processes must fail. The authors detail how nearly every reaction in cells requires molecular machines to drive it at the correct rate:

But even those of life’s molecular transformations that do run downhill have to be taken out of chemistry’s hands and “managed” by a dedicated macromolecular machine — in order to impose conditionally manipulable control over reaction rates and to exclude undesirable reactions, both as to reactants and products. On its own, chemistry is far too indiscriminate and uncontrollable.

The authors also state that the operations of a cell must conform to “an elaborate organizational design.” 

Life does not represent an emergent property of matter, but a system of processes directed by advanced nanotechnology to operate in conformity with a blueprint or design architecture. One could no more explain the organization of a cell through the chemistry and physics of its constituent molecules than one could explain the organization of a car through the chemistry and physics of metal, glass, rubber, and gasoline. 

Remarkably, the authors even recognize that the need for molecular machines eliminates any possibility of Life emerging through natural processes:

We claim in particular that it is untenable to hold that life-relevant biochemistry could have emerged in the chemical chaos produced by mass-action chemistry and chemically nonspecific “energy” inputs, and only later have evolved its dauntingly specific mechanisms (as a part of evolving all the rest of life’s features).

They respond to this challenge by appealing to natural selection. Yet nothing is reproducing, so their only hope for explaining life is a delusion. Here again, the authors present a bleak picture of the field by concluding that life’s origin appears “untenable.”

Assembling the Cellular Components

Ironically, explaining the synthesis of life’s building blocks (e.g., proteins, RNA, membranes, sugars) is far easier than explaining how they could assemble into a functional cell. What would happen if aliens deposited millions of tons of randomly sequenced proteins and RNA, cell membranes, molecular machines, and every other cellular component on the early Earth? Everything would simply decompose into “uselessly complex mixtures.” Even if decomposition were somehow prevented, forming a minimally complex cell would still require three steps: 

Selecting the correct proteins, RNA, and other structures out of an unfathomably large pool of molecules. 

Localizing the building blocks in a microscopic environment. 

Properly assembling the molecules and structures into a fantastically rare arrangement.

Tour explained the complete implausibility of these steps through known natural processes in a video, which I summarized in a previous Article. 

Irrelevant Research on Life’s Origin

Examining the assembly problem reveals the irrelevance of current origin-of-life research. Origins experiments and hypotheses represent mere nibbling around the edges of the real challenge, for reasons that can best be understood with an analogy. Imagine a group of scientists claiming that the laws of aerodynamics guarantee that a tornado plowing through an auto parts store will often assemble the parts into a functional car. To prove their point, they attempt to demonstrate that high winds under the right conditions can push nuts and bolts closer together. Even if successful, this one step is inconsequential in relation to the entire task of car assembly. 

Similarly, simply forming a few biologically relevant molecules or linking them together is inconsequential when compared to fabricating a cell, which represents a nanotechnology vessel capable of such feats as energy production, information processing, and error correction. Any honest assessment of the evidence must conclude that life did not originate through natural processes, but instead is the product of a mind.

The ancients weren't as dumb as we were told?

 Film Festival 2023 — “Three Big Myths”

Evolution News 

Proverbs ch.8 Rotherham's Emphasised Bible.

 8 .1 Doth not wisdom cry aloud? And understanding send forth her voice?

2 At the top of the high places above the way, At the place where paths meet she taketh her stand:

3 Beside the gates at the entrance of the city,—At the going in of the openings she shouteth:—

4 Unto you O men I call, And my voice is unto the sons of men;

5 Understand, ye simple ones, shrewdness, And ye dullards understand sense;

6 Hear for princely things will I speak, And the opening of my lips shall be of equity;

7 For faithfulness shall my mouth softly utter, But the abomination of my lips shall be lawlessness;

8 In righteousness shall be all the sayings of my mouth, Nothing therein shall be crafty or perverse;

9 All of them shall be plain to them who would understand, And just to such as would gain knowledge.

10 Receive my correction and not silver, And knowledge rather than choicest gold.

11 For better is wisdom than ornaments of coral, And no delightful things can equal her.

12 I wisdom inhabit shrewdness,—And the knowledge of sagacious things I gain.

13 The reverence of Yahweh is to hate wickedness: Pride, arrogance and the way of wickedness; And a mouth ofRiches and honour are with me, Lordly wealth, and righteousness;

14 Mine are counsel and effective working, I am understanding, mine is valour:

15 By me kings reign, And dignitaries decree righteousness;

16 By me rulers govern, And nobles—all the righteous judges:

17 I love them who love me, And they who diligently seek me find me:

18 Riches and honour are with me, Lordly wealth, and righteousness;

19 Better is my fruit than gold—yea fine gold, And mine increase than choice silver;

20 In the way of righteousness I march along, In the middle of the paths of justice:

21 That I may cause them who love me to inherit substance, And their treasuries I may fill.

22 Yahweh had constituted me the beginning of his way, Before his works At the commencement of that time;

23 At the outset of the ages had I been established, In advance of the antiquities of the earth;

 24When there was no resounding deep I had been brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water;

25 Ere yet the mountains had been settled, Before the hills had I been brought forth;

26 Or ever he had made the land and the wastes, Or the top of the dry parts of the world:

27 When he prepared the heavens there was I! When he decreed a vault upon the face of the resounding deep;

28 When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the resounding deep waxed strong;

29 When he fixed for the sea its bound That the waters should not go beyond his bidding, When he decreed the foundations of the earth:—

30 Then became I beside him a firm and sure worker, Then became I filled with delight day by day, Exulting before him on every occasion;

31 Exulting in the fruitful land of his earth, Yea my fulness of delight was with the sons of men. perverse things do I hate.

32 Now therefore ye sons hearken to me, For how happy are they who to my ways pay regard!

33 Hear ye correction and be wise, And do not neglect.

34 How happy the man that doth hearken to me,—Keeping guard at my doors day by day, Watching at the posts of my gates;

35 For he that findeth me findeth life, And hath obtained favour from Yahweh;

36 But he that misseth me wrongeth his own soul, All who hate me love death.