Some more Darwinism vs. Darwinism action.

 Moran: Sternberg and Behe “Appear to Know More About Evolution than Their Opponents”

Evolution News

Evolutionist Laurence Moran writes, “Richard Sternberg says ENCODE disproved junk DNA, therefore intelligent design.” The post is about the recent debate in Poland, which David Klinghoffer wrote about here (“In Debate on Intelligent Design, Critic Cites Dragon Legend to Justify Evolution’s Failures”). Note Professor Moran’s last paragraph in particular:

Sternberg scores big at 2:51:11 when he asks, “Can there be Darwinian evolution … or any evolution in general, without natural selection?” The correct answer is yes. Malgorzata Moczydlowska-Vidal says no and so does Michael Ruse. Ruse then goes on to explain why he dismisses random genetic drift. Sternberg then explains neutral evolution and Michael Lynch’s drift-barrier hypothesis and why some biologists use them to explain some of the ID challenges. Sternberg (and Behe) appear to know more about evolution than their opponents.

Like most supporters of “constructive neutral evolution” (CNE) — sheer luck on steroids is how one might think of CNE — Moran is powerfully irked by the excessive reliance on natural selection in biological explanation, by Richard Dawkins and others.

But the whole point of selection, for Darwin as well as his 20th-century intellectual followers, was to bias or direct the deliverances of chance variation, so that “luck” didn’t have to do all the work. CNE dumps selection, however, for “x had to evolve because complexity just accumulates by chance,” which looks like a poor exchange on the best of days.

Design thinkers in biology may often appear an embattled minority, but we’d guess that most ID proponents are relieved they don’t have to live in a mental world limited to choosing between selection and CNE. No thanks: we’ll pass.

Vestigial science?

 Another “Vestigial” Organ Turns Out to Have “Absolutely Critical” Functions: The Human Yolk Sac

Casey Luskin

“The human yolk sac is often considered vestigial.” So states a 2017 paper in PNAS, which goes on to say “The human embryo retains a yolk sac, which goes through primary and secondary phases of development, but its importance is controversial.” That paper went on to report that “human secondary yolk sac likely performs key functions early in development.” 

But a new paper in Science, “Yolk sac cell atlas reveals multiorgan functions during human early development,” has seemingly settled this debate by showing that the human yolk sac “generates the first blood and immune cells and provides nutritional and metabolic support to the developing embryo.” A commentary about the paper in Science — “Three organs in one? Researchers unscramble mysterious roles of human yolk sac” — explains the import: “it’s not vestigial … the human yolk sac is a multitasker, the study shows. It also carries proteins for breaking down harmful toxins and produces proteins necessary for blood clotting.”

Chickens and Duck-Billed Platypuses

The article elaborates: 

          Like chickens, duck-billed platypuses, and other animals that hatch from eggs, you had a yolk sac when you were an embryo. For many vertebrates, this pouch serves multiple developmental roles, including holding, well, yolk, the nutrient-rich liquid that helps nourish the embryo.

However, the function of the human yolk sac is unclear. It contains no yolk and dwindles during the second trimester of pregnancy — the placenta instead provides the key route for feeding the offspring. Now, a study out in Science today reveals the human yolk sac stands in for organs such as the liver and kidneys that arise later in development. The findings could help researchers create better embryo mimics in the lab and devise new ways to cultivate immune cells for treating diseases.

[…]

What the results of the study show, Haniffa says, is that “there is a fleeting structure during early development that is absolutely critical for the embryo.” The versatile yolk sac “is three organs in one,” she says, performing jobs that will later be delegated to the liver, kidneys, and bone marrow.

Retaining Evolutionary Interpretations 

Unfortunately, despite the importance of this “absolutely critical” organ, some are still intent upon retaining evolutionary interpretations. An article about this research at Science Alert exhibits this reasoning:

                   Now a large team of researchers led by the Wellcome Sanger Institute in the UK has uncovered a good reason for holding onto this seemingly useless relic of our deep evolutionary past. A few good reasons, in fact.

“Mapping out how the yolk sac evolves during these first weeks of pregnancy is fundamental to the understanding of the development of the immune system,” says dermatologist Muzlifah Haniffa, senior author of a recent study profiling the human yolk sac’s tissues as part of the international Human Cell Atlas initiative.

“This is the first time that we show the multiple organ functions of the yolk sac — we’ve seen a relay from the yolk sac to the liver, to the bone marrow.”

Investigations based on various model animals suggest our yolk sac is the source of our very first blood cells. Not just the oxygen-transporting red variety, but the white cells that serve as an immune response, which travel from the sac to the liver, and then later to the bones where they settle to help form marrow.

What we see here is that even in the face of clear evidence of function for this structure in human development, it’s still being understood as a “relic of our deep evolutionary past.” The intelligent design paradigm sees biology very differently: If we assume that structures are present for a reason, then we’ll find that they probably have important functions. This ID-based assumption has borne fruit over and over again in biology — leaving one to question whether evolutionary concepts about “vestigiality” or “relics of our past” ought themselves to become relics of the past. 

Plenty of guilt to go around and then some.

 

An interlude V

 Rouse yourself man/woman of God and take up JEHOVAH'S cause.

An attack on "Wokism's" left flank?

 

Deuteronomy Ch.17 American Standard Version.

 Deuteronomy Ch.17:

1Thou shalt not sacrifice unto JEHOVAH thy God an ox, or a sheep, wherein is a blemish, or anything evil; for that is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.

2If there be found in the midst of thee, within any of thy gates which JEHOVAH thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of JEHOVAH thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, or the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, then shalt thou inquire diligently; and, behold, if it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel, 5then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, who hath done this evil thing, unto thy gates, even the man or the woman; and thou shalt stone them to death with stones. 6At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. 7The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.

8If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which JEHOVAH thy God shall choose; 9and thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days: and thou shalt inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment. 10And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall show thee from that place which JEHOVAH shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee: 11according to the tenor of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before JEHOVAH thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. 13And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

14When thou art come unto the land which JEHOVAH thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me; 15thou shalt surely set him king over thee, whom JEHOVAH thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother. 16Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he may multiply horses; forasmuch as JEHOVAH hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

18And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear JEHOVAH his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them; 20that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel.

Deuteronomy ch.13 American Standard Version

 Deuteronomy Ch.13:

1If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder, 2and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams: for JEHOVAH your God proveth you, to know whether ye love JEHOVAH your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4Ye shall walk after JEHOVAH your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he hath spoken rebellion against JEHOVAH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which JEHOVAH thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.

6If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, that is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from JEHOVAH thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 11And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do not more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.

12If thou shalt hear tell concerning one of thy cities, which JEHOVAH thy God giveth thee to dwell there, saying, 13Certain base fellows are gone out from the midst of thee, and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 14then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in the midst of thee, 15thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 16And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, unto JEHOVAH thy God: and it shall be a heap for ever; it shall not be built again. 17And there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing to thy hand; that JEHOVAH may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; 18when thou shalt hearken to the voice of JEHOVAH thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of JEHOVAH thy God.

Debris from the Cambrian explosion?

 Fossil Friday: Jellyfish Body Plan and Life Cycle Originated in the Cambrian Explosion

Gunter Bechly

The Cambrian Explosion certainly represents the best-known example of abrupt appearances in the history of life. Most of the body plans of bilaterian animal phyla appeared on the scene without known precursors that would document the incremental and gradual evolution predicted by the modern neo-Darwinian paradigm. However, the abrupt appearances in the Cambrian Explosion are not restricted to bilaterian animals. In a previous article I meticulously elaborated that unequivocal sponges also first show up in the Lower Cambrian (Bechly 2020), and Precambrian evidence for cnidarians is at least controversial (Bechly 2022).

Now a new study by Moon et al. (2023) suggests that the distinctive medusoid body plan of jellyfish and their complex life cycle with sessile polyp stage and free-swimming medusa stage also originated during the Cambrian Explosion (News Staff 2023), adding to the enormous biological importance of this crucial event. The scientists examined 182 exceptionally well-preserved fossil jellyfish from the Lower Cambrian of the famous Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, which is quite remarkable considering that jellyfish are roughly 95 percent water and therefore not the most likely candidates for well-preserved fossils. The animals were named Burgessomedusa phasmiformis and had a cuboidal umbrella of up to 8 inch size with over 90 very short and finger-like tentacles.

Contrary to Darwinian Expectations

Remarkably, these animals can already be placed within the crown group of the living cnidarian clade Medusozoa, which is not exactly what Darwinists should expect to find as the very first and oldest fossil record of a group. The new study also clarifies that “previously described macrofossils, putatively representing medusa stages of crown-group medusozoans from the Cambrian of Utah and South China, are here reinterpreted as ctenophore-grade organisms.” This shows that such identifications should always be taken with a grain of salt.

References

Bechly G 2020. The Myth of Precambrian Sponges. Evolution News May 12, 2020. https://evolutionnews.org/2020/05/the-myth-of-precambrian-sponges/

Bechly G 2022. “Lying on the Internet”? Debunking Dave Farina on Stephen Meyer. Evolution News December 1, 2022. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/12/lying-on-the-internet-debunking-dave-farina-on-stephen-meyer/

Moon J, Caron J-B & Moysiuk J 2023. A macroscopic free-swimming medusa from the middle Cambrian Burgess Shale. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 290(2004): 20222490, 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.2490

News Staff 2023. Paleontologists Identify Oldest Known Species of Free-Swimming Jellyfish. SciNews August 2, 2023. https://www.sci.news/paleontology/burgessomedusa-phasmiformis-12147.html

On Trinity dogmas: some brief histories.

 

Golda Meir: a brief history.

 

James Tour holds court re:the origin of life (again)

 

An interlude IV

Isaiah ch.3 American Standard Version

 Isaiah Ch.3:

1)For, behold, the Lord, JEHOVAH of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water;

2.the mighty man, and the man of war; the judge, and the prophet, and the diviner, and the elder;

3.the captain of fifty, and the honorable man, and the counsellor, and the expert artificer, and the skilful enchanter.

4.And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.

5.And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbor: the child shall behave himself proudly against the old man, and the base against the honorable.

6.When a man shall take hold of his brother in the house of his father,'saying , Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and let this ruin be under thy hand;

7.in that day shall he lift up his voice , saying, I will not be a healer; for in my house is neither bread nor clothing: ye shall not make me ruler of the people.

8.For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen; because their tongue and their doings are against JEHOVAH, to provoke the eyes of his glory.

9.The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have done evil unto themselves.

10.Say ye of the righteous, that it shall be well with him ; for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.

11.Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him ; for what his hands have done shall be done unto him.

12.As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they that lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

13. JEHOVAH standeth up to contend, and standeth to judge the peoples.

14.JEHOVAH will enter into judgment with the elders of his people, and the princes thereof: It is ye that have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses:

15.what mean ye that ye crush my people, and grind the face of the poor? saith the Lord, JEHOVAH of hosts.

16.Moreover JEHOVAH said, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with outstretched necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet;

17.therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and JEHOVAH will lay bare their secret parts.

18.In that day the LORD will take away the beauty of their anklets, and the cauls, and the crescents; 19the pendants, and the bracelets, and the mufflers; 20the headtires, and the ankle chains, and the sashes, and the perfume-boxes, and the amulets; 21the rings, and the nose-jewels; 22the festival robes, and the mantles, and the shawls, and the satchels; 23the hand-mirrors, and the fine linen, and the turbans, and the veils.

24.And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet spices there shall be rottenness; and instead of a girdle, a rope; and instead of well set hair, baldness; and instead of a robe, a girding of sackcloth; branding instead of beauty.

25.Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

26.And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she shall be desolate and sit upon the ground.

Laissez faire capitalism= anarchy? Pros and cons.

 

Jesus is the most high God?

 

The Son of the living God.

 

On the denutrionising of fruit and vegetables?

 

Higher Ed has fallen?

 

The radical left is on the march?

 

On the value of alternative history.

 

Where's my simple beginning?

The origin of life remains the origin of Darwinism's rebuttal

 

Hidden history?

 

In search of the web 3.0

 

The end of the war to end all wars

 

John Adams and the trinity.

 JOHN ADAMS WAS NOT A THEISTIC RATIONALIST – PART 8: ADAMS AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST

Bill Fortenberry

In regards to John Adams’ view of the deity of Christ, Frazer wrote:

However, like the deists, Adams did not believe in the deity of Jesus … For Adams and the other theistic rationalists, Jesus was an exemplary man who left an example to follow and who deserved to be imitated, but He was not God.

Frazer is partly correct in this statement. Adams was a committed Unitarian who rejected the orthodox concept of the Trinity. In other words, he did not believe that Jesus Christ was the same being as God the Father. However, there are a very wide range of Unitarian views of Christ, and Frazer is mistaken to conclude that Adams believed Jesus to be just an exemplary man.

The idea that Jesus was just a good man sent from God is known in theological circles as Socinianism. It is the most extreme of the Unitarian views of Jesus, and it was the view held by Joseph Priestley of whom Adams wrote:

I shall never be a disciple of Priestley. He is as absurd inconsistent, credulous and incomprehensible as Athanasius.

Frazer probably assumed that Adams was a Socinian because of Frazer’s mistaken belief that Adams viewed Priestley as “the authority in religious matters,” but there is another (and a much more common) form of Unitarianism that Adams may have accepted.

 

The most prominent form of Unitarianism in 18th and 19th century America was Arianism. This form of Unitarianism follows the teachings of Arius who wrote:

We say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning.

                 other words, the Arians believed that Christ was the first being that God the Father created, that He was created as part of the Godhead, and that He with the Father then created everything else. This view of the Deity of Christ was expressed a little more clearly by one of Arius’ disciples, a missionary to the Goths named Ulfilas. Ulfilas wrote:

I believe there is one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and I believe in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, Creator and Maker of the whole creation, not having any like unto Him – therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God.

From Ulfilas’ statement, it is clear that Arians agreed with the concept of the Deity of Christ, but they rejected the idea that Christ was co-eternal with God the Father. To the Arians, the idea that an eternal being could die was preposterous, but they could accept the idea of Christ as God dying for us because they did not view Christ as an eternal being. In their reasoning, Christ could die even though He was part of the Godhead because of the fact that He had a beginning. 

 

All of John Adams’ statements about Christ are consistent with the Arian form of Unitarianism, but he made several statements which are not consistent with Socinianism. For example, Adams made several references to Christ as his Savior which he would never have made as a Socinian. He once wrote to his wife that:

Our Saviour taught the Immorality of Revenge, and the moral Duty of forgiving Injuries, and even the Duty of loving Enemies.

And in his diary, he penned:

By this said our Blessed saviour shall all Men know that ye are my diciples, if ye have Love to one an other; how many inducements does the Christian Religion offer to excite us to universal Benevolence and Good will towards each other, and yet how often do we suffer the vilest of passions to Dominer over us and extinguish from our Bosoms every generous principal.

A Socinian would not have referred to Christ as the Savior, for Socinians viewed Jesus as nothing more than “an exemplary man who left an example to follow.” An Arian on the other hand would not have hesitated at all to speak of Christ as his Savior, for Arians agreed with the orthodox view of Christ’s atonement for sins. 

 

In his lectures, Frazer refers to one of Adams’ statements about the Trinity as “the saddest, most incredible thing I found in thirty years of research.” The statement that Frazer is referring to is found in one of Adams’ letters to Jefferson in which Adams wrote:

Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai and admitted to behold, the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three, one: we might not have had courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it. The thunders and lightenings and earthqu[ak]es and the transcendant splendors and glories, might have overwhelmed us with terror and amazement: but we could not have believed the doctrine. We should be more likely to say in our hearts, whatever we might say with our lips, this is chance. There is no God! No truth. This is all delusion, fiction and a lie: or it is all chance.

               According to Frazer, this statement is an admission that:

Adams was so opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity that he said he would not believe it if directly told of it by God Himself ... Adams thought his reason more reliable than direct revelation from God.

But that is not necessarily the case. What Adams actually said was that he would be more likely to deny that he was being spoken to by God than he would be to believe that God was telling him that 2 plus 2 equals 5 and that the number 1 is equal to the number 3. According to Adams the idea that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and the idea that 1 is not equal to 3 are mathematical truths which cannot be disputed or doubted. Just prior to making his statement about Mt. Sinai, Adams said:

We can never be so certain of any Prophecy, or the fullfillment of any Prophecy; or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle as We are, from the revelation of nature i.e. natures God that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or Prophecies might frighten Us out of our Witts; might Scare us to death; might induce Us to lie; to Say that We believe that 2 and 2 makes 5. But We Should not believe it. We Should know the contrary.

This is a true statement. There are very few people in this world who would believe that 2 plus 2 equals 5 even if a powerful, spiritual being were to shout it to them while claiming to be God with the accompaniment of thunder and lightning. There is a term for people who would accept such a belief, and that is the term “fideist.” A fideist is one who believes that all knowledge is dependent on direct revelation from God, and Frazer may share that belief. The vast majority of humanity, however, (including most Christians) would be more likely to conclude that no being proclaiming that 2 plus 2 equals 5 can possibly be God regardless of how much he may claim to be so with thunder and lightning. 

 

This is all that Adams was saying in his letter to Jefferson. He was not saying that he would still deny the Trinity even if God Himself were to explain it to him. What he was actually claiming was that he would still deny the Trinity even if some being claiming to be God offered him the same explanation of the Trinity as that which was given by its orthodox defenders. To Adams, the explanation given by orthodox Trinitarians was just as absurd as saying that 2 plus 2 equals 5, and he refused to believe such an explanation even if he were to hear it proclaimed from heaven. He would sooner believe that his senses were playing tricks on him than that God would say something false.

 

Now, many Christians would still conclude that Adams could not have been both a Christian and an Arian, but there is no Scriptural support for this view. Arianism has never been conclusively disproven, and there is no passage of Scripture which declares that Christians must hold to the Athanasian view of the Trinity. Personally, I think that the Athanasian formula is correct, but I recognize that it is just a man-made formula. It is just one of many attempts to explain a very large collection of passages in Scripture which touch on the nature of Christ. I think that Athanasius was correct, but there remains a possibility, however remote, that he may have been wrong. God has not deigned to give us an exact explanation of the natures of the Father, the Son and the Spirit, and until He does, I don’t see that we have any grounds to pronounce anathemas against those who accept a view different from our own.

Climate change: a brief history

 

The protolife continues to troll Darwinism

 First Life Must Have Had a Minimally Reliable Replication System ­— A Conundrum for Materialists

Jonathan McLatchie

We have often considered the difficulties inherent in the popular RNA world scenario that is envisioned for primitive life. According to this model, prior to the emergence of DNA and proteins, RNA ribozymes served as the first replicators. The model is intended to circumvent the problem of causal circularity — that DNA must be copied by proteins, which are themselves coded for by DNA. Problems abound for the RNA world theory. Chief among those are the inherent instability of RNA (being single stranded, and possessing an additional 2’ OH group, rendering it prone to hydrolysis) and the fact that ribozymes have not been shown to be capable of complete self-replication. 

A Physical Limitation

Indeed, on this latter point, when RNA forms complementary base pairs to fold back on itself, part of the molecule no longer presents an exposed strand that can serve as a template for copying. Thus, there is a physical limitation on the capability of RNA to self-replicate.

Another problem that has not received as much attention is the problem of replication fidelity. What do I mean by this? An important requirement of life is a means of minimally accurate self-replication. Biologist Jack Szostak explains that “In order for RNA to have emerged as the genetic polymer that enabled protocells to evolve in a Darwinian manner, the process of RNA replication must have been accurate enough to allow for the transmission of useful information from generation to generation, indefinitely.”1 Indeed, as biochemist Sy Garte observes, when the replication fidelity falls below a certain threshold, “modern organisms undergo an error catastrophe from which they cannot recover, as has been shown in the cases of viruses, aging, in evolution and in macromolecular replication in early life.”2 Viruses, particularly RNA viruses, are close to this critical threshold, with approximately one mutation per replication — and, in fact, increasing the rate of mutations to result in an error catastrophe has been proposed as an anti-viral strategy.3,4,5

A Minimum for Life?

What is the minimum level of replication fidelity needed to sustain life? This “has been estimated to be equal to 1-(1/L), where L is the length of the information molecule polymer.”6 The size of the smallest ribozymes is in the ballpark of around 50 ribonucleotides.7 For a string of ribonucleotides of this length, Jack Szostak concludes that “the error rate during template copying should be less than ~2% at each position, assuming that only about half of the nucleotide positions need to be specified, but each position must be copied twice for full replication.”8 But what is the average error rate during RNA copying? According to one study, this was estimated to be around 17 percent, which is significantly higher than the error rate threshold given above.9 With optimized nucleotide ratios, however, this may be reduced to less than 10 percent. And (since U residues are the biggest contributors to error rate, resulting from G:U mismatch formation) it may be even further decreased to around 5 percent on GC-rich templates.10 This, however, suggests a finely tuned and optimized sequence of ribonucleotides. And, yet, 5 percent is still too high — more than double what it needs to be for survival and evolution. Thus, Szostak concludes, “Clearly, a robust means of further reducing the error rate is critical if non-enzymatic RNA replication is to serve as the means for initiating Darwinian evolutionary processes.”11 Again, though, this will require additional levels of fine-tuning and design.

“A Sort of Phase Transition”

Sy Garte, in a paper published in BioCosmos, invites us to consider that the minimum threshold of replication fidelity needed to sustain life “represents a sort of phase transition” — values below this threshold cannot be increased by evolutionary mechanisms.12 This presents a significant challenge to naturalistic origin-of-life scenarios, since natural selection is impotent to produce the high replication fidelity needed for life to thrive and for evolution itself to take place. The earliest life must therefore have had a minimally reliable replication system right from the beginning. This is extremely difficult to account for on the hypothesis of naturalistic evolution. This fact, however, becomes much less surprising on a design-based view, since intelligent agents can optimize and fine-tune engineered systems.

Garte concludes his paper by noting, 

While the concept of emergence is a useful phenomenological description of what happens at phase transitions, it is quite likely that further progress into elucidating the emergence of biology from chemistry might require the use of radically new perspectives on possible biological mechanisms, including teleology, which are beyond the scope of this report.

On a Design-Based View

Thus, Garte expresses an openness to teleological explanations with regard to the origin of life. How might such a teleological inference be expressed? As a Bayesian, I conceive of evidence in terms of a likelihood ratio — the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis (on the numerator) against the probability of the evidence given the falsity of the hypothesis (on the denominator). The top-heaviness of this likelihood ratio (referred to as the Bayes factor) corresponds to the evidential value of the observation under consideration. On a design-based view, it is not particularly surprising that the first life would be finely optimized to reduce copying errors sufficiently for survival and evolution. On the other hand, it is really quite surprising on the falsity of the design hypothesis. Thus, this data tends to confirm a design-based framework.

Notes

Szostak, J.W. The eightfold path to non-enzymatic RNA replication. J Syst Chem. 2012 3(2).

Garte S. Evidence for Phase Transitions in Replication Fidelity and Survival Probability at the Origin of Life. BioCosmos. 2021 1(1):2-10.

Bull JJ, Sanjuán R, Wilke CO. Theory of lethal mutagenesis for viruses. J Virol. 2007 Mar;81(6):2930-9.

Anderson JP, Daifuku R, Loeb LA. Viral error catastrophe by mutagenic nucleosides. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2004;58:183-205.

Eigen M. Error catastrophe and antiviral strategy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 15;99(21):13374-6.

Garte S. Evidence for Phase Transitions in Replication Fidelity and Survival Probability at the Origin of Life. BioCosmos. 2021 1(1):2-10.

Ferré-D’Amaré AR, Scott WG. Small self-cleaving ribozymes. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2010 Oct;2(10):a003574.

Szostak, J.W. The eightfold path to non-enzymatic RNA replication. J Syst Chem. 2012 3(2).

Leu K, Obermayer B, Rajamani S, Gerland U, Chen IA. The prebiotic evolutionary advantage of transferring genetic information from RNA to DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 Oct;39(18):8135-47.

Szostak, J.W. The eightfold path to non-enzymatic RNA replication. J Syst Chem. 2012 3(2).

Ibid.

Garte S. Evidence for Phase Transitions in Replication Fidelity and Survival Probability at the Origin of Life. BioCosmos. 2021 1(1):2-10.

The teleology is real? Pros and Cons.

 

Darwinism vs. Darwinism?

 

In search of JEHOVAH'S mind?

 

Making a long story short re:the origin of life/information.

 

The shape of nerdhood?

 

Playing with fire?

 

Our curated reality?

 

On OoL science's time of the gaps fallacy?

Yet more on darwinism and master race delusion

JEHOVAH The immortal God.

 And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, “There will be no more delay! 

1Timothy ch.1:17 NIV"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Malachi ch.3:6ASV"For I, JEHOVAH, change not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed."

Christendom's lies notwithstanding the Lord JEHOVAH is unchangeably immortal and hence can never be mortal in whole nor in part.

If time is a finite creation then JEHOVAH has not lived forever.

In the bible time and space are abstractions and hence neither cause nor effects they merely qualify causes and effects.

The great first cause the Lord JEHOVAH is qualified as eternal having neither beginning nor end.

Cancelled by natural selection uncancelled by artificial selection?

 What “Resurrecting” the Woolly Mammoth Would Mean for Darwinism

Rob Sheldon

Image credit: Thomas Quine, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.

From the Financial Times, “Wooly idea: start-up’s wild plan to resurrect the mammoth”:

George Church has co-founded almost 50 companies based on experiments in his genetics lab, from tackling age-related diseases to creating pig organs to be used in human transplants.

But his latest project, Colossal Biosciences, is his most outlandish yet. The Texas-based start-up is aiming to spin off businesses and license technologies to fund bringing the woolly mammoth, the Tasmanian tiger, and the dodo back from extinction. 

Its plan is to use gene editing to change the embryos of familiar animals until they resemble the lost species and it wants to create its first version of a mammoth — a gene edited elephant embryo born to an elephant mother — by 2028. Church said the timeline was “ambitious” but “not impossible”. …

In 2018, Church travelled to the Pleistocene Park experimental nature reserve in Siberia, where he was working with Russian scientist Sergey Zimov on a plan for the mammoths to eventually be released into the wild.

Colossal believes that bringing back mammoths could help restore the arctic tundra, preventing the thaw and release of stored greenhouse gases.

The project faces two huge challenges in particular. The first is to increase the number of gene edits that can be done at once, a process known as “multiplex editing”, to get as close as possible to creating a mammoth from an elephant embryo. 

The second is to create a system to incubate mammoths in artificial wombs.

Of course, if they do succeed, it will be against everything Darwin told us. Species no longer appear from common descent, but now include designed horizontal gene transfer which should make a mess of inheritance trees and ghost lineages. It shows that speciation no longer has to use breeding, but simply genetic vectors — like viruses — to deliver the novel information. It says that intelligent design can be used to bypass all the glacially slow random ways to modify the genome. In other words, ID becomes the most likely hypothesis to abductively explain the data. 

How will they wiggle out of that one?

The great train robbery of science fraud?

 

On the behavioural sciences' replication crisis II

 

on the behavioural sciences replication crisis.

 

An interlude III

 

Yet more on why the origin of life = the origin of information.

 Introducing the Unknome, Biology’s Black Box

David Coppedge

"Ome” is not a mantra in science, but it is an increasingly common suffix in biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology. We all know about the genome. Then there was the epigenome, followed by the proteome. Now there is the interactome, the metabolome, the transcriptome, and others. More “omes” seem to pop up in the literature from time to time. As in the genome representing the set of genes of an individual or species, the suffix -ome denotes a “body” or set of parts that can be described together: the proteome consists of all the proteins in a cell. The transcriptome is the set of DNA transcripts. The interactome is the set of all interacting parts in a process, and the metabolome is the full complement of metabolites in a cell, tissue, or organism at a particular state. A new one is the “unknome” — the set of all components we know nothing about. More on that later. The -ome suffix has also long been used on individual units like ribosome, cytochrome, cryptochrome, and chromosome. Poets should have an easy time writing verses about biochemistry.

The study of all omes can be called Omics, with family members like genomics, proteomics, and transcriptomics. Omics is not just a taxonomical exercise; it is an attempt to get a handle on the bewildering complexity facing cell biologists. And just when they think they’ve got all the members corralled in an ome, complications set in.

Your Genomes (Plural)

For example, the journal Science announced recently that “Your cells don’t have the genome you were born with.” Contrary to what most people were led to believe by 23andMe, none of us have “a” genome, except at conception. From then on, the genome changes cell by cell, tissue by tissue, throughout life. These can add up to tens of thousands of changes per somatic cell. Modifications to the genome by mutations or by developmental processes turn us into universes of genomes!

As a result, every person is actually a mosaic of genomes, varying across the body and often within the same organ or tissue. These DNA changes introduce a diversity to the body’s somatic, or nonreproductive, cells that may be as important to health as the more pervasive alterations inherited from parents. Now, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has launched a 5-year, $140 million project to map this universe of genomic diversity — and probe why it matters. 

Dan Landau calls this “a huge revolution in human genetics.” He is eager to see the results. “We are just at the beginning of this incredible adventure.”

Omics in 3-D

Another review article in Science announces “The Dawn of Spatial Omics.” The editor’s review says,

All of biology happens in space. In living organisms, cells must interact and assemble in three-dimensional tissues. The position of each cell is just as important as its intrinsic nature in determining how a tissue functions or malfunctions in a disease. Recently, many technologies have been invented to profile cells without removing them from their natural context, measuring gene expression and the regulatory landscape of a cell’s genome alongside its spatial location within a tissue. In a review, Bressan et al. describe the features of these methods, collectively named spatial omics, and discuss what is missing for them to unlock their full potential.

The authors, Bressan, Battistoni, and Hannon, begin with a fanfare: “Just as single-cell sequencing has revolutionized many fields of biology, spatial ‘omics,’ in which molecular parameters are measured in situ on intact tissue samples, is set to empower a new generation of scientific discoveries.” 

Spatial molecular profiling at the tissue level (and sometimes at the cell level) with “multi-omic” technologies will allow researchers to study the genome, transcriptome, and proteome simultaneously in situ within an organ, tissue, or cell. This adds another layer of information that was hidden from earlier studies

One of the first steps along this journey was the emergence of single-cell “omics” technologies that operate on disaggregated tissues. These methods enabled the discovery of new cell types, cast new light on organismal development, and launched the process of creating comprehensive catalogs of human and mouse tissues. However, biological processes happen in a spatial context, and the three-dimensional (3D) arrangement of cells in a tissue has a profound effect on their functions…. Regardless of their undisputed power, measurements made on disaggregated cells or nuclei lack this layer of information. The need for such knowledge has driven the development of “spatial omics”: methods capable of measuring the molecular characteristics of cells in their native 3D context.

The authors say that “we are at the very beginning of the spatial omics revolution” and that “progress is happening at breakneck speed” that will undoubtedly give scientists “a much deeper understanding of biology in context.”

As an example of the profound effect of spatial and environmental influences on an organism, researchers at Harvard found that specific neurons become active when a mouse makes an error navigating a virtual reality maze. 

The researchers found that when a mouse made and corrected a mistake while navigating, the subtype of neurons became active. This held true even when they guided the mouse to err, either by rotating the maze or changing the color cues. However, if the mouse didn’t make a mistake, or made a mistake but didn’t correct it, the neurons didn’t fire.

When the neurons became active, they did so in unison, prompting a follow-up experiment in which the researchers stimulated the cells with light. They found that the neurons are essentially hardwired to each other, meaning that the electrical current telling them to fire can flow directly from one cell to the next.

Studying these neurons in isolation would not have revealed this concerted, dynamic activity

Interactome Sentries

Scientists at Leiden University in the Netherlands found that the “cytosolic interactome protects against protein unfolding” with a continuous process of “biological origami at the molecular level.” According to Phys.org, the

Group leader, Alireza Mashaghi, said, “When a cell experiences stress, a protein can unfold to a completely unfolded chain. Once that has happened, it’s very hard to reverse. But we noticed the cytoplasm puts a break on this process, not allowing the unfolding to go all the way. This protects the proteins and ensures a proper functionality, and also makes it easier for proteins to refold once the stress in resolved.”

Unknome: The Final Frontier

From the Public Library of Science comes word of “The ‘unknome’: the set of gene transcripts we know almost nothing about.” This black box consists of “thousands of understudied proteins encoded by genes in the human genome, whose existence is known but whose functions are mostly not.”

The sequencing of the human genome has made it clear that it encodes thousands of likely protein sequences whose identities and functions are still unknown. There are multiple reasons for this, including the tendency to focus scarce research dollars on already-known targets, and the lack of tools, including antibodies, to interrogate cells about the function of these proteins. But the risks of ignoring these proteins are significant, the authors argue, since it is likely that some, perhaps many, play important roles in critical cell processes, and may both provide insight and targets for therapeutic intervention.

Echoed by Phys.org, this news says that researchers in the UK are putting together a public database of these proteins that they trust will shrink over time. The Unknome [Unknown Genome] Project has started at http://www.unknome.org. The proteins are ranked by how little is known about them, stimulating researchers’ curiosity to find out what they do.

It’s clear that Omics is discovering additional layers of biological information in living systems. Antiquated 1960s-era concepts of genes and proteins, like the Central Dogma, are being overwhelmed by this new vista of multi-dimensional dynamic organization. If the earlier geneticists were looking at a 2-D flat map, the new generation is looking at a thriving city. Old dogmas about Darwinian evolution seem woefully inadequate to understand complexity at this level. Science in the 21st century will require a theoretical framework equipped to handle information flow in time and space. There is one. It’s known as intelligent design

Reviewing a "win" for Darwinism.

 An Impressive Instance of Unguided Evolution? Not So Much

Evolution News

On a classic episode of ID the Future, host and biologist Ray Bohlin interviews biophysicist Cornelius Hunter, author of Darwin’s God, about an article in the journal Science concerning a virus invasion of E. coli bacteria. The article subtitle announces “Natural Selection Caught in the Act,” and suggests that an impressive instance of unguided evolution has been directly witnessed. Not so fast, Hunter says. The results were intelligently designed (by the lab scientists), he notes, and the changes are less impressive than they may appear at first glance. Hunter also explains protein-protein binding and counters evolutionist Dennis Venema to argue that the way the vertebrate immune system drives change is not at all analogous to the evolutionary process of random mutations and natural selection. Moreover, Hunter says, the mammalian immune system is itself an enormous challenge for evolutionary theory. 

Unfortunately, it’s common for studies such as this one to be hyped up by the scientific community and the establishment media. “Evolutionists are driven by non-scientific factors, non-scientific influences,” says Hunter. “There is a desire for the theory to be true in spite of the science, not because of the science.” Download the podcast or listen to it here.

Yet another own goal from professor Dave? Or time to drop atheism's LVP From the squad?

 

Ecosystems vs. Darwinism

 Ecosystems — A Tribute to Intelligent Design, or to Chance and Adaptation?

Eric Hedin

Although intelligent design is evident in the biochemistry of the cell and the physiological systems of the body, living organisms are not independent but exist in a web of life, interdependent upon other living things in an ecosystem.  

As we think about all the species of animals, birds, and fishes on Earth, it becomes apparent that each one requires a certain type of food, suitable for its anatomy. Domestic livestock, including cattle, horses, sheep, and goats, can be nourished through grazing on grasses and broadleaf weeds, although each has different preferences.1 Among the wild animals, carnivores have varying needs for prey that match their size and abilities. With the thousands of species of birds, the preferred menu selections stretch from sips of nectar to berries, insects, smaller animals, carrion, or fish.

Variety and Quantity

Considering that water covers 71 percent of the Earth’s surface, it’s not surprising that the variety and quantity of fish inhabiting oceanic and freshwater ecosystems is legion.

The total number of living fish species — about 32,000 — is greater than the total of all other vertebrate species (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) combined.2

Fish species include herbivores and carnivores (smaller fish get eaten by bigger fish). The largest marine species include baleen whales that are uniquely outfitted to obtain their nourishment from the smallest organisms:

[Baleen whales] are the largest animals on Earth, yet they live off some of the smallest. They can grow to lengths of 30 meters (90 feet), but it is the microscopic zooplankton, krill and small fish that sustains them.3

The main point here is not a lesson on what different creatures eat, but that the multiplied billions of creatures on Earth all need to be fed according to their specific dietary needs and their physiological and anatomical specifications. Anyone who has taken care of animals knows that concern over providing sufficient food of the right type never takes a vacation. Not many of us have pet hummingbirds, but if we did, we might lose weight just making sure they didn’t:

Hummingbirds have a very high metabolism and must eat all day long just to survive. They consume about half their body weight in bugs and nectar, feeding every 10-15 minutes and visiting 1,000-2,000 flowers throughout the day.4

Caring for more prosaic animals is also demanding

Cows are natural grazers, preferring to eat 5 to 9 meals a day, plus drinking. For this reason, cows have free access to fresh food and water throughout the day….So just how much does a cow eat? While each cow is different, a typical milk-producing dairy cow, weighing around 600kg, eats around 29kg [64 pounds] of feed each day and may drink about 100L of water (about a bathtub’s worth).

Apart from domesticated animals, wildlife depends upon an ecosystem in which the lives of multiple species are interconnected. We can observe how many species of living things thrive in a given ecosystem, but to take for granted the finely tuned balance within these life-nourishing habitats is to overlook layered evidence for design.

Let’s Look at a Few Specific Examples

In the wild, an apex predator such as a lion is equipped to hunt prey, but of course an abundance of suitable prey must exist within its territory. The prey, typically herbivores, need sufficient grassland to graze upon and water to drink. Seasonal weather changes must be moderate, so that vegetation and surface water are available year-round. The perspective of naturalism takes it for granted that these requirements are simply adaptations that occurred in time and location without any thought or foresight.

Consider another example. A raptor such as a red-tailed hawk is equipped with the ability of flight, sight and talons to hunt and capture small creatures. Rather than ascribing the sophisticated, finely tuned characteristics of such a bird of prey and its ecosystem to unguided evolutionary adaptations, purposeful design provides an explanation more consistent with the specific, interdependent functionality in this and other examples.

Design or Adaptation?

Surviving a cold winter that can last four to six months or longer, when no plant growth occurs and insects vanish, would seem impossible for many types of birds. However, several species of songbirds manage just fine, even when the average temperature falls well below freezing, eating seeds, nuts, and berries. Is this evidence for design, or is it just natural adaptation? 

If the ability of birds to thrive across the Earth is just a matter of adaptation, the process works unbelievably well with the thousands of species of birds. “New research estimates there are between 50 billion and 430 billion birds on Earth.”5 The sheer number and variety of birds thriving in multiple environments on every continent argues that something far more than luck and unguided nature is behind it all.

Our increased understanding of the biochemical complexity within any living organism, coupled with a growing awareness of the delicately balanced ecosystems sustaining life on Earth, suggest ingenious foresight, planning, and design with every type of life we observe.6

Fish far outnumber birds on our planet, with estimates of 3.5 trillion fish inhabiting the oceans,7 and each one of these trillions of creatures needs a regular supply of food accessible to it in a suitable form and quantity. Let’s imagine an experiment: given a planet with oceans empty of life, how much intelligence would it take to design an interdependent ecosystem capable of supporting thousands of species of fish over a time frame stretching across hundreds of millions of years? 

From Molecules to Gills

Oh, and if you, as a designer substitute, think of a type of fish to introduce into the pond, you’ll have to design everything about it, from molecules to gills. “Trial and error will save the day!” you say? “Once life gets going as a single-cell organism, chance and natural selection will succeed where human intelligence falls short.” Ah, yes. That makes sense.

Notes

 

“Understanding Working Rangelands — Cattle, Sheep, Goats, and Horses: What’s the Difference for Working Rangelands?” Univ. of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, publ. 8524 (July, 2015).

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish .

Jon Lapidese, “Baleen Whales — The Gentle Giants of the Ocean,” https://oceanwide-expeditions.com/blog/baleen-whales-the-gentle-giants-of-the-ocean

https://www.adirondackcouncil.org/page/blog-139/news/10-facts-about-hummingbirds–and-other-interesting-tidbits-1101.html .

How many birds are there in the world? | National Geographic .

Marcos Eberlin, Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose, https://www.discovery.org/store/product/foresight/ .

“How Many Fish Live in the Ocean?” WorldAtlas.

Conditional vs. unconditional immortality

 

On free moral agency IV

 

The bard on capturing the agrora.

 

On free moral agency III

 

Darwinist are giving up on replanting the tree of life?

 

On free moral agency II

 

On free moral agency.

 

The chain of Command.

 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, a and the head of Christ is (The)God. 

Our brother Paul is taking us back to the garden with this exposition

Note please:

1Corinthians ch.11:7-9NIV"A man ought not to cover his head, b since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

So there are two bases for seniority in this chain ,temporal priority, the man was created before the woman and Christ was created before all others and of course His God is eternal.

Also of note there is a widening of the gap has one ascends the chain the one atop this particular chain of command is infinite in both capability and in due authority so he transcends the rest of the chain. Any comparative gaps between the other members of the chain are relatively insignificant. 

Two the transmission of life JEHOVAH the God and Father of Jesus is the ultimate source of life which he transmitted to humanity through his living logos beginning with the first man and through him the first woman. Only one member of this chain of command is called Ho Theos and he is the same one who is ALWAYS called Ho Theos,the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ JEHOVAH God.

The riot act: for those who missed it the first time

 There will be no anonymous commenting on this site period.

Against unknown?III

Unknown: Scripture also teaches that, in a certain sense, the Father also "receives" something from the Son (e.g., Jn 16:15.23). Jesus submitted himself (hypotasszó) to the Father (1 Cor 15:28), "that God may be all in all", but this in no way implies inferiority, as he also subjected himself (hypotasszó) to Mary and Joseph (Lk 2:51), and Col 3:11 claims that "Christ is all, and in all".

Aservantof JEHOVAH:John ch.16:23NIV"In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. "

John ch.16:15NIV"All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”"

Colossians ch.3:11NIV"being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, "

So nothing about the most high God receiving any authority from his Son

He did submit to to his human parents why?

Galatians ch.4:4N8V"But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,"

The law of course was made for man not angels or God-men. So the human not God-man Christ in obedience to the law honored his Father and mother

Exodus ch.20:12 ,Mark ch.2:27

The God and Father of Jesus is the MOST HIGH God and thus has no co-equals

Luke ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the MOST HIGH. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David, "

John ch.10:29NIV"My Father, who has given them to me, is GREATER than ALL c ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand"

So the union of Father and Son is not a union of co-equals

Only the God and Father of Jesus is ever called Ho Theos in an unqualified way so the God and Father of Jesus is not merely a unique person but a unique God which falsifies the trinity no member of the trinity is supposed to be the unique God in and of himself.

1Corinthians ch.15:28NIV"When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that(The) God may be all in all."

Also consider:

Matthew ch.24:36KJV"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my FATHER ONLY. "

So even if we buy your utterly unscriptural God-man fudge how come the holy spirit does not know.