Dave Farina: team atheism's LVP VII

 Exposing Professor Dave’s Playground Tactics and Citation Bluffing Blitz

Casey Luskin 

In a series here I have been offering a post-mortem on the recent origin-of-life Debate between Rice University chemistry professor James Tour and YouTube science educator “Professor” Dave Farina. The point of this series is that you don’t have to be a science expert to understand who won the debate. I’m presenting three observations which are strong indicators about who won the debate:

Tour focused on science, Farina focused on character assassination.

Tour posed reasonable scientific challenges which Farina refused to answer.

Farina relied heavily upon playground tactics, appeals to authority, and citation bluffing.

In previous posts I discussed the First and Second elements, and here I’ll address the third:

Blinding Us with Science?

I don’t want this series to sound like Dave Farina did not discuss science. Interspersed in his flow of personal attacks and mockery of James Tour, some science came out. For the Q&A Farina had clearly prepared a list of peer-reviewed scientific papers written by leading origin-of-life researchers that he planned to cite because he believed they answered Tour’s requests for how various chemicals could form under prebiotic conditions. That’s fine. Good for Farina — this was a step in the right direction.

It was here that Farina used a blitz approach, throwing citation after citation at Tour rather than giving a detailed description of the science. Tour would respond to some if not many of the papers but there was simply not enough time to do so for all of them. 

But in a great many cases, Tour had ready answers for why those papers either did not produce what Farina claimed or did not actually model realistic prebiotic conditions. It was here that it became clear that Farina was frequently out of arguments so he would resort to unpersuasive theatrics. 

Sometimes Farina would try to pre-emptively prevent Tour from challenging the paper he’d just cited by saying things like “So do you call this guy a fraud?” or “Are you calling the author a liar?” Farina began to sound like a broken record, saying this over and over. It was clear he had nothing better than to tacitly threaten Tour’s integrity if he dared to challenge Farina’s scientific authority of the moment (that is, the claims Farina was making about the authority). 

Farina’s repeated framing was that if Tour criticized the paper then Tour must be calling the scientists a total “fraud” or “liars,” and he would not let Tour disagree or challenge him on this. When Tour gave details Farina would mock him. If you disagreed with Farina’s authority then you were immediately deemed a crank and intellectually deficient. 

Other times, Farina would resort to ridiculing Tour with sarcasm, and would even frequently stoop to repeating Tour’s words back at him with a mocking tone — a playground tactic one might expect from a person trying to divert attention from the fact that they have no answer to the question. Similarly, whenever Tour would cite numerical statistics that challenged the origin of life, Farina would mockingly mutter things like “There you go with big numbers again,” sneering at Tour for simply making a substantive argument. These antics may please the peanut gallery but they don’t inspire confidence in Farina’s science.  

The rapid-fire citation approach also raised questions about whether his papers actually backed up his claims. In fact, a little investigation after the debate showed that at least some of Farina’s papers were what we call “citation bluffs.” 

Farina’s Citation Bluffs on RNA Replication

To give one important example, Farina cited a 2009 paper co-written by origin-of-life giant Gerald Joyce published in Science to claim they had produced a “fully replicating” RNA (Farina’s words) – a key step in the origin of life. This is not the first time we’ve encountered this paper — it has been answered by both Stephen Meyer and Brian Miller. A couple years ago Miller gave it an astute dissection in response to another interlocutor who cited it as a refutation of Meyer. Here’s’ what Dr. Miller wrote: 

So what about Joyce’s experiments? Did they show that RNA molecules can self-replicate more than 10 percent of themselves under plausible prebiotic conditions and without intelligent intervention — the specific claim that Meyer disputes. 

No, they did not. Instead, here’s what Joyce and Robertson, and earlier Joyce and Lincoln, actually did.

In these experiments, Gerald Joyce and his colleagues demonstrated that a specifically designed RNA enzyme (or “ribozyme”) that they designated as E could link together two partial strands or halves of another RNA molecule (which they called the RNA substrates A’ and B’). The resulting new RNA enzyme (designated E’) could then join together two parts of the original ribozyme (RNA substrates A and B). The longer strands fused together by this process (that is, ribozymes E and E’) could then repeatedly fuse together the two halves of the opposite ribozyme if (1) a continuous supply of the two halves (either A’ and B’ or A and B) were provided in ample amounts to the experiment and if (2) critical protein enzymes were also introduced into the experiment at specific times. 

Here is a figure that depicts the entire process. … [T]he researchers themselves, give the impression that these experiments produced a self-replicating system that simulates “self-sustaining Darwinian evolution,” they in fact did no such thing. Nor did they produce an RNA molecule that could copy more than 10 percent of itself or, still less, one that could reproduce itself with “100% effectiveness” and do so under plausible prebiotic conditions.

                         Ligation, not Polymerization or Replication 

In the first place, Joyce and colleagues did not produce a genuinely self-replicating molecule. As envisioned by RNA World proponents, the emergence of a self-replicating RNA molecule is the crucial step in the emergence of the first life on earth since only after the emergence of such a self-replicating molecule would something like natural selection and random mutation begin to occur. 

Moreover, in the RNA world scenario a self-replicating RNA molecule would emerge only after (1) the chemical subunits of RNA formed on the early earth and then (2) those subunits linked together in specific ways to form an RNA molecule capable of producing copies (and near copies) of itself. RNA world researchers envision such self-replication occurring as the result of a ribozyme (specifically an RNA replicase) using a complementary copy of itself as a template to produce another copy of the original strand from free-floating RNA subunits (in particular, activated RNA nucleotides). 

Nevertheless, as Meyer has repeatedly noted, the molecules in Joyce’s experiment do not demonstrate the capability for such template-directed self-replication — a capability that RNA world advocates envision as crucial to the process of life originating from RNA molecules. Such self-replication necessarily requires the ribozyme to function as a polymerase — in other words, the ribozymes need to have the ability to link many nucleotide bases together to form long RNA chains. The ribozymes in the Joyce experiments do not perform this action. Instead, they catalyze (ligate) a single linkage between two ends of two pre-made, pre-sequenced halves or sections of RNA — sections that, once linked, will become a separate RNA chain that folds into a ribozyme. Thus, the RNA enzymes in Joyce’s experiments function as simple ligases rather than polymerases or replicases. 

                                    Meyer had already critiqued these experiments showing that they lacked this capability and did so again in Return of the God Hypothesis. As he stated (on p. 309): 

“The ‘self-replicating’ RNA molecules in this experiment did not copy a template of genetic information from free-standing nucleotides as protein machines (called polymerases) do in actual cells. Instead, in the experiment, a presynthesized specifically sequenced RNA molecule merely catalyzed a single chemical bond, fusing together two other presynthesized partial RNA chains. Their version of ‘self-replication,’ therefore, amounted to nothing more than joining two sequence-specific premade halves together.“

This limitation underscores why Meyer has correctly emphasized that simulations of RNA self-replication have failed to produce molecules capable of producing more than 10 percent of themselves. In Joyce’s experiments the single linkages performed by his RNA ligases provide far less than 10 percent of the total number of linkages in the resulting RNA strands (each of which include more than 60 such linkages between nucleotide bases). Indeed, Joyce himself has acknowledged that his experiment merely demonstrates the capacity of RNA molecules to perform ligation not polymerization and, thus, not genuine self-replication. As he noted, his use of “a directed evolution strategy required selecting for the ability to catalyze a simple ligation reaction, rather than replication itself.” 

Thus, the paper that Farina cites as producing a “fully replicating” RNA shows no such thing: it shows that an RNA enzyme can ligate (i.e., join) two pre-existing RNA strands — but only if those RNA strands are continuously supplied in great abundance. There is no polymerization of new RNA molecules going on here; as Miller puts it there is no ability “to link many nucleotide bases together to form long RNA chains.” Miller thus notes that in a later paper commenting on these very experiments, Joyce admits this is “a directed evolution strategy required selecting for the ability to catalyze a simple ligation reaction, rather than replication itself.” This very different from the “fully replicating” result claimed by Farina. 

We actually tackled this paper in a Long Story Short: Origin of Life video on replication which provided a nice discussion of what’s really going on with this paper. See the video here for details:

<iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zK3jQtzIHLI" title="Challenge to Origin of Life: Replication (Long Story Short, Ep. 8)" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Far from Explaining Replication

Biomedical engineer Robert Stadler, who helped create that Long Story Short video, further discussed this paper and the Long Story Short video’s critique on a recent episode of ID the Future, where he and Eric Anderson explained how far away this paper is from explaining the origin of replication. Their transcript is helpful to understand what’s going on:

Stadler: The analogy there is if you had a car that you cut in half, and then you had another car come along and it pushed the two halves together so that they joined and formed a functioning car. And then you claimed that you had created the world’s first self-replicating car. That’s basically what that paper is doing because it’s a ribozyme RNA, a strand of RNA, that’s able to create a single functional bond between two halves of itself to bring those together to create a full version of itself and they claimed that was self-replicating.

Anderson: Yeah I loved that example from the video because it’s really helpful for us. … They had this RNA which is able to catalyze a reaction and then they split it at the point where those particular nucleotides join. And so then you go out and buy—I mean literally buy from the polymer store — the two strands. And then you have the one that ligases or puts together those two nucleotides and then boom you get a second one and you claim that’s replication….

Stadler: A really important limitation too is that in that experiment there’s nothing hereditary being passed along, meaning that the molecule that’s doing the bonding, the ribosome, is not passing its information along to the combination of those two parts. All it’s doing is it’s bonding them together and then they go off and do their thing.

Anderson: Right. And then that reaction is just going to continue in that test tube until it runs out of reagents and then it’s done.

Stadler: Exactly. 

But There’s More

How did Joyce get this continuous supply of the needed RNA strands that were being joined together? It was through modern biochemistry and intelligent design — not a simulation of unguided prebiotic conditions. Miller continues:

So, in light of all this, how did Joyce and his colleagues produce many complete copies of their original ribozymes E and E’? It turns out the production of the copies of the RNA enzymes in their experiment depends — not on the ability of the RNA molecules to copy themselves — but instead on complex protein enzymes derived from living cells. Specifically, to make more copies of the RNA enzymes Joyce and colleagues employed the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) procedure that requires using two complex protein enzymes — a reverse transcriptase and a DNA polymerase — as well as other molecular tools such as primers. Indeed, in order to make more copies of the most efficient ribozymes (rather than making complementary RNA strands with the opposite bases at each site) this procedure requires turning RNA into DNA and then reconstituting RNA from DNA. But that procedure necessarily employs an RNA reverse transcriptase, as mentioned, and an RNA polymerase — both of which are derived from living bacteria. As Meyer has told me, “Joyce and his team did not produce a self-replicating RNA molecule. Instead, they intelligently designed a system of protein-enzyme mediated replication.” Since these proteins had to be extracted from already living cells, Meyer also commented that “these experiments lead to the paradoxical conclusion that simulating a crucial step toward the origin of the first life from non-living RNA molecules requires the use of protein enzymes derived from already living cells.” Investigator Intervention

There is another reason that these experiments do not demonstrate the capacity of the RNA molecules in the experiment to self-organize or self-replicate. Every crucial step depended upon external guidance — often in the form of inputs of functional sequence-specific information — from highly intelligent chemists, in particular, Gerald Joyce and his colleagues.

Consider first that Joyce intelligently designed the larger ribozymes designated E and E’ that could link each other’s halves together. To build a precursor ribozyme in an original 2001 experiment, Joyce started with a random crop of 100 trillion RNA molecules with many different nucleotide base sequences. He then repeatedly applied chemical screens to select out those few RNAs that could perform ligation and performed it best (Rogers and Joyce 2001). 

Next, he selectively altered the base sequences in particular regions of these RNAs to enhance their ability to link together the halves of a duplicate strand. For example, he wanted the ribozymes to be able to bind strongly enough to the complementary base pairs on the substrate molecules (i.e., A and B) and yet not to bind so strongly as to prevent the larger ribozyme from breaking away once the two RNAs halves had linked together. Thus, Joyce not only used his intelligence to select molecules that could perform the function that he wanted from a random crop, he also optimized the function of these ribozymes through modifying carefully chosen regions (Paul and Joyce 2002). Joyce then altered the original RNA enzyme (which he called T) in order produce two new ribozymes (which he called E and E’) that would have the ability to link the two halves of each of these new enzymes together — where E would link together A’ and B’ to form E’, and E’ would link together A and B to form E. By his own admission, he used what he characterized as a “rational design” approach to create this mutually interdependent, cross-catalyzing system. He specifically arranged the RNA base sequences in the “paired regions” of the two enzymes so that they would bind by complementary base pairing to the substrates. In addition, the regions near the ends of the break between the two halves of E and E’ had to be engineered to ensure that a ribozyme-mediated linkage could occur (Lincoln and Joyce 2009). 

All this implies that Joyce necessarily had to design the pre-made, sequence-specific halves (i.e., both A and B and A’ and B’) that his ribozymes would join together. Indeed, the break point between the two halves needed to be at just the right location in order to ensure that ligation would occur. As mentioned, the arrangement of the nucleotide bases on the pre-made halves needed to be precise so that they would bind to their opposite base on the ribozyme by complementary base pairing. Meeting these specifications required Joyce’s repeated, active, and intelligent intervention in his experiment. Once Joyce had designed this cross-catalyzing system, he used “directed evolution” in an attempt to improve the efficiency of the ligase ribozymes. His team started by altering specific positions in the original ribozymes to generate numerous variants of E and E’ in the 2009 study and to generate numerous variants of E in the 2014 version of the experiment. They then isolated the variants that demonstrated the most efficient substrate-joining (ligase) function and differentially reproduced those. The 2014 study also tested for the variants’ ability to link their own half-strands together as well as the half strands of the opposite ribozyme. 

Clearly, this process also required extensive investigator guidance and intelligent design. For example, Joyce and his colleagues employed advanced laboratory techniques to generate trillions of variants of the original enzyme(s) and trillions of copies of the substrates. They then executed equally advanced procedures such as “selecting the reacted, biotinylated products by capturing them on a streptavidin-agarose resin” to tag and capture the variants that most efficiently joined substrates (Robertson and Joyce 2014). One cannot overstate the implausibility of comparable processes occurring outside of an advanced laboratory setting staffed with highly trained and intelligent technicians, let alone on the pre-biotic earth, presumably devoid of any source of intelligent guidance (here, here).

Indeed, as Meyer argued in Return of the God Hypothesis (p. 310), 

“…whenever chemists set up or interfere in a reaction sequence — or whenever they otherwise apply constraints to a chemical system — to ensure one outcome and preclude others, they effectively input information into that system. In so doing, they inadvertently simulate, if anything, the need for intelligent design to generate biologically relevant chemistry and information.”

Moreover, Meyer specifically applied this critique to Gerald Joyce’s ribozyme engineering experiments in his discussion of them in in RGH (p. 309). As he notes:

“Lincoln and Joyce themselves intelligently arranged the base sequences in these RNA chains. They generated the sequence-specific functional information that made even this limited form of replication possible. Thus, the experiment not only demonstrated that even a limited capacity for RNA self-replication depends upon information-rich RNA molecules; it also lent additional support to the hypothesis that intelligent design is the only known means by which functional information arises.”

This is just one important example of a paper that Farina touted that did not show what he claimed. The paper does not show a “fully replicating” RNA system, and what was done did not occur under prebiotic conditions.

Farina’s Citation Bluffs on Prebiotically Produced “Functional RNAs”

As another example, Farina and Tour sparred over Farina’s citation of a 2013 paper by Engelhart, Powner, and Szostak in Nature Chemistry titled “Functional RNAs exhibit tolerance for non-heritable 2′-5′ versus 3′-5′ backbone heterogeneity.” In normal biology, RNAs only use bonds between 3′ and 5′ carbons between successive nucleotides along their backbones, and 2’-5’ bonds between successive nucleotides make RNAs unusable. Some experiments evidently have shown that nucleotides can link up when templated using montmorillonite clay, but the bonds are a mix of normal 3’-5’ bonds and the unwanted 2’-5’ bonds. Farina repeatedly cited language from this this paper claiming that it shows that even RNAs with 2’-5’ bonds can be “functional” — i.e., ribozymes. Tour replied that it all depends on what you mean by “functional” and that they weren’t really useful, particularly because the RNAs end up branching into non-linear structures that don’t function at all like ribozymes or modern RNAs, which are linear and orderly. 

Our “Long Story Short: Origin of Life — Replication” video addressed this paper head-on, using the image below to show why these kinds of RNAs don’t look or work anything like functional biological RNAs: 

The Long Story Short video provides a note explaining how poorly these ribozymes worked and that the more 2’-5’ bonds that were present, the more its efficiency dropped:

Engelhart, Powner, and Szostak took a relatively simple ribozyme that could break bonds. The correct linkage (3’-5’) made a ribozyme that could break 80% of bonds in 48 hrs (Figure 3b). Then they tried a ribosome with 10% of the wrong linkage (2’-5’). That one could break 60% of bonds in 48 hours. With 25% of the wrong linkages, it broke about 25% of the bonds in 48 hours. With 50% of the wrong linkages, it broke only a few % of the bonds in 48 hours. 

Engelhart, Powner, and Szostak, the authors of the paper, are excited that they got any functionality whatsoever — but it’s clear that they were not working on a type of ribozyme that could do very much at a very rapid rate. It all comes down to how you define “functional” RNA: If the function is quite simple (i.e., nonspecific), having some inappropriate 2’-5’ linkages will be tolerated. But if the function is more specific, a bad bond could seriously interfere with the function. Could Farina’s purported (but not actual) “fully replicating” RNAs tolerate 2’-5’ linkages? It seems doubtful. One of those doubters might be Steve Benner, an authority that both Tour and Farina cited during their debate. Citing Engelhart et al. (2013), Benner wrote earlier this year:

[D]etailed analysis of the RNA formed on impact basaltic glass shows that it contains a mixture of 2’,5- and 3’,5’-links. The seriousness of this problem is still not clear. Some think that this mixture of linkages can be cured. Others not.

STEVE BENNER, “RETHINKING NUCLEIC ACIDS FROM THEIR ORIGINS TO THEIR APPLICATIONS,” PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B, 378: 20220027 (2023).

It seems that not everyone believes that functional 2’-5’ ribozymes have been created after all. 

Closing Thoughts

It’s true that sometimes it can be hard to tell that serious problems remain unsolved until you drill down into the scientific details. But the rapid-fire rate and detail-poor style with which Farina was throwing papers at Tour gives you a clue that something was up. Farina further tried to impose a framing upon Tour that would not even let him challenge the paper without supposedly calling the authors a “fraud,” etc. He used playground tactics and mockery — making fun of Tour’s words without even trying to answer what he was saying. When someone resorts to mockery, won’t let an opponent speak for himself, and just throws out paper after paper without careful analysis, that shows they probably don’t have a good argument. 

           

On the Logos

 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word(Logos) was with God, and the Word(Logos) was God.

Re:the meaning of logos one commentary says in part:

(lógos) is a common term (used 330 times in the NT) with regards to a person sharing a message (discourse, "communication-speech"). 3056 (lógos) is a broad term meaning "reasoning expressed by words."]

Biblehub 

Thus Logos implies communication between distinct minds(or at the very least a realistic attempt at such) and not and not mere speech or writing.

So if I opened a book in a language that I don't comprehend even though the text would be visible to me ,the 'Logos' of the author would remain invisible to me, at least until I was sufficiently conversant in that tongue.

Thus the idea that the Logos at John ch.1 could refer to JEHOVAH'S uncommunicated/unexpressed knowledge or wisdom seems unlikely. Logos would be JEHOVAH'S knowledge and/Wisdom expressed/Communicated to (a) distinct mind(s) at John ch.1 it is the living embodiment of that Communication.

Family feud?

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