Micah Ch.5 v.2 demystified.

  Micah 5:2

Some trinitarians tell us Micah 5:2 (or 5:1 in some versions) teaches that Jesus has always existed ("from everlasting" - KJV). And since only God has existed for all eternity, Jesus must be God! 

But look at other trinitarian translations of Micah 5:2. (E.g., "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" - RSV, cf. JB, NEB, REB, NAB, NIV, AT, Mo, NRSV, NJB, CEB, CJB, ERV, ESV, God's Word, LEB, MEV, NCV, NET, NLT, WEB, Byington, and Young's.) Not only does this verse not teach that Jesus has always existed, it even speaks of his origin in very ancient times. (Origin: "a coming into existence" - Webster's New World Dictionary, 1973.)

Why would these trinitarian translations admit such a thing? Perhaps because it is difficult to honestly translate the Hebrew motsaah with a word that does not include this understanding. (Even when "goings forth" is the rendering, it appears it should also be with the understanding of "originating." For example, if we said "the command went forth from the King," we obviously mean the command originated with - or sprang from - the king! And when Micah 5:2 says of the Messiah: "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth [the Messiah]," it can only mean that, in his earthly existence, he originated in Bethlehem!) 

Obviously for so many respected trinitarian translators to choose this meaning ("origin") they must feel there is no other honest choice! The only meanings given by Gesenius for this word in his highly-respected Lexicon are "origin, springing" - #4163, Gesenius - cf. Micah 5:1 in The Jewish Publication Society's Bible translation, Tanakh.  

And A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament gives the only meaning for this word as used in Micah 5 as "origin." - p. 187, Eerdmans.

It would make no sense to interpret this as meaning the Messiah's human origin springs from ancient times. We have just been told that in Micah's time the Messiah's human origin was to be a future event and would take place in Bethlehem. Also there are no humans who haven't sprung from the very first pair in ancient Eden. It would be ridiculous to make the point that the human Messiah came from ancient stock since every human has done so. It must mean that his pre-existence as a spirit person in heaven originated in very ancient times (as the very beginning of God's creation - Rev. 3:14; Prov. 8:22). The Bible Greek of the ancient Septuagint, in fact, at Micah 5:2 says: "and his goings forth were from the beginning [arkhe], from ancient days [aionos]." 

The NIV Study Bible, in a footnote for Micah 5:2 explains: "origins...from of old. His beginnings were much earlier than his human birth." 

BUT THE TRUE, ETERNAL GOD HAD NO BEGINNING!

As for the Hebrew word olam, it can often be understood as “ancient times” or “of old” and does not necessarily refer to “eternity.” Here is how olam is used in the following scriptures in the NASB:


of old (Gen 6:4)

days of old (Deuteronomy 32:7)

From ancient times (Joshua 24:2)

from ancient times. (1 Samuel 27:8)

the ancient path (Job 22:15)

the ancient boundary (Proverbs 22:28)

the ancient boundary (Proverbs 23:10)

the ancient nation (Isaiah 44:7)

ancient ruins (Isaiah 58:12) 

ancient ruins (Isaiah 61:4) 

the days of old. (Isaiah 63:9)

the days of old (Isaiah 63:11)
          an ancient nation, (Jeremiah 5:15)
          the ancient paths (Jeremiah 6:16)

          the ancient paths (Jeremiah 18:15)

         the ancient waste places (Ezekiel 26:20)

         the days of old (Malachi 3:4)

Micah 5:2 literally says "days of olam." This same wording is found again in Micah at Micah 7:14:

Let them feed in Bashan and Gilead as in the days of old [‘days of olam’] (Micah 7:14).

Try substituting “eternity” in the above scriptures. It’s clear that the NASB has rendered olam correctly in those scriptures. 

So, adding the fact that the Messiah had a beginning in this verse to the possibility of olam meaning “ancient” as translated here in numerous Trinitarian Bibles and and in many other scriptures, it seems evident that the RSV has correctly rendered Micah 5:2 - 

(RSV) Micah 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. 


It's also very important to examine Micah 5:4 where Jehovah is recognized as being the God of the Messiah! (The NIVSB tells us in a footnote for this verse that the LORD [`Jehovah'] here - the God of the Messiah - refers to "God the Father.")
Posted by Elijah Daniels

On trinitarians and their analogies.

 

The wisdom of the original philosopher king.

 Roman's Ch.2:4NKJV"Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?"

Firstly the Lord JEHOVAH is trying to teach mankind that we cannot become truly better off until we become truly better people. There is no shortcut ,not better laws,not better technology nor better organization.

First there must be a better man only then would a better world be possible Jesus Christ is the prototype of that new man.

Roman's Ch.13:14NKJV"But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts."

Secondly there is NO Political or legislative pathway to this new man.

1Timothy Ch.1:8,9NKJV"But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,"

The fact that one needs to be deterred or restrained by the threat of force/actual force from wrongdoing proves that one is not suited for a place in the coming better world of JEHOVAH'S Making. The New World is not going to be a police state or prison camp.

Here is what will guarantee the enduring liberty and security of JEHOVAH'S New World.

Jeremiah Ch.31:33,34NKJV"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their [i]hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”"

New people(Mental and moral clones of Christ) are what will make JEHOVAH'S New World truly New and not merely the old world 2.0.

Naturally selecting what exactly?

 

Revelation14:14-20 demystified.

  Son of Man Reaps - Rev. 14:14-20

"I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one "like a son of man" with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.

"Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, "Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth and the earth was harvested.

"Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, "Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth's vine, because its grapes are ripe." The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the winepress of God's wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia [about 200 miles]." - Revelation 14:14-20, NIV.

Noted trinitarian scholar William Barclay writes in his The Revelation of John, Vol. 2 (Revised Ed.), "The Daily Study Bible Series" that there are "difficult things" in this passage.

"... there is the fact that the one like a son of man reaps and also an angel reaps. We may regard the one like the son of man, the risen and victorious Lord [Jesus], reaping the harvest of his own people, while the angel with the sharp sickle reaps the harvest of those destined for judgment."

Dr. Barclay didn't go on to explain another difficulty: Why the scripture about the son of man reaping is so difficult for many trinitarians. So the purpose of this paper is to explain why this scripture is so difficult for trinitarians.

Notice these statements by respected trinitarian authorities which also confirm that it is Christ being spoken of in the passage in question:

Rev. 14:14: "Christ is come for reaping this time (Heb. 9:28) for the harvesting of earth (verses 15-17). - p. 414, Vol. 6, Word Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson (extreme trinitarian).

`Crown': "Hence in the Apoc. [Revelation] a crown is represented on the conquering Christ (Rev 6:2, 14:14)" - p. 530, Vol. 1, A Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), James Hastings, Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.

`Crown' (Stephanos in NT Greek) - "Stephanos is the crown of exaltation bestowed upon Christ (Rev 6:2; 14:14; He:2 9)." - p. 763, Vol. 2, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (very trinitarian), Eerdmans Publ., 1984 printing.

"The linguistic usage of Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 reveals affinities to Dan. 7:13. Both passages speak of `one like a son of man' as walking (`amidst the lampstands') or `sitting' on the clouds of heaven. Note too how Rev. differs from the Gospels in leaving out the article; this is apparently an imitation of the text of Dan. 7:13: the apocalyptic `Son of man' is the figure found already in Dan. 7:13, but now as a glorified ruler and judge." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), p. 633, Vol. 3, Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1986.

Also examine Acts 1:9; Daniel 7:13,14; Acts 1:11; Mark 13:26, 27; and Rev. 1:7:

"[the resurrected Jesus] was lifted up, and a cloud removed him from their sight [`a cloud hid him from their sight' - GNB; `he disappeared into a cloud' - LB]" - NEB, Acts 1:9.

"[Daniel saw in a vision:] behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days [God] and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom." - NASB, Daniel 7:13, 14.

"`This Jesus, who has been taken away from you up to heaven [hidden in a cloud], will come in the same way as you have seen him go.'" - NEB, Acts 1:11.

"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather [reap] his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens." - NIV, Mark 13:26, 27.

"Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him" - NASB, Rev. 1:7.

Notice how one scripture tells us that Jesus' followers will be `gathered by the sickle' (harvested) from the earth by Jesus the king who is still seated on the cloud (Rev. 14):

"So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth and the earth was harvested."

Does it say Jesus will actually physically return to earth? No. It clearly says he will still be seated in the clouds when he harvests his people from the earth. In the same way that the clouds hid him when he left (Acts 1:9), they could well be hiding him on his harvesting return ("in the same way as you have seen him go.")

Furthermore, Jesus doesn't even do it firsthand, but, instead, while "in clouds," actually sends his angels to earth to do it! (Mark 13:26, 27.) So, when it also speaks of Jesus being `seen,' we may decide that it really means we `see' in vision, or even `see' by means of our own understanding of what is happening. - see Insight, Vol. 2, p. 678, `Presence.'

After all, other righteous people described in the Bible as having `seen' God, did not physically see him, but, instead, actually saw a vision or even a representative (usually an angel) of God - See SF study paper. Job, for example merely heard Jehovah's voice coming from a windstorm (`whirlwind' - NRSV), but later he said ... "now my eyes have seen you." Job 38:1; 42:5, NIV. And the footnote for Job 42:5 in the New International Version Study Bible tells us:

"... now Job has seen God with the eyes of faith and spiritual understanding" - NIVSB, 1985 ed.

In line with this understanding is the rendering by many translators of Heb. 9:26. Here the inspired Bible writer tells us that Jesus has already "appeared once and for all" [hapax - see the NWT study paper]. - NEB, JB, NJB, GNB, Phillips; cf. RSV, NRSV, REB, NAB (1970 & 1991 revision). This would certainly seem to indicate that Jesus would not again physically appear to men.

But whether men actually, physically see him or not is not an important issue. Surely an honest misunderstanding of this would in no way threaten your standing with God.

An error in your understanding of who God is and, therefore, your worshiping God in truth (John 4:24), however, is a crucial issue which means everlasting life (John 17:3) or eternal destruction (2 Thess. 1:8, 9, NRSV).

- - - - - -

It is strange that so many respected trinitarian scholars admit that Christ is the `son of man' in Rev. 14:14. Of course the evidence overwhelms any other theory, but that doesn't stop many trinitarian "scholars" from constructing other poorly supported context-defying statements in other areas of the Bible.

Of course, they usually just ignore the great trinitarian difficulty of Rev. 14:14. And what is this great difficulty concerning Christ on the clouds in Rev. 14:14?

He is in all respects like an angel (Dan. 10:5; cf. Rev. 1:13; 14:15 - `another angel' besides that of 14:14 [Christ])." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), p. 633, Vol. 3, Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1986.

Notice that the "son of man" on the clouds is given a command by "another angel" and he obeys that command. The command, of course, comes from God (the Father alone) through the angel. Both the "son of man" and the other angel are servants of God (the Father alone).

The wording " another angel" (although not certain, because of the description of other angels before the appearance of the "son of man") at least strongly indicates that the "son of man" here is an angel of God.

But we find absolutely no indication whatsoever in this account that the angel who orders Christ to harvest the earth is giving orders to God Himself! Can anyone believe that an angelic servant of God would speak this way to the Most High God Himself? Or that he would have to tell the omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) Most High "God the Son" when and how to do anything?

Isn't it obvious that Jesus here is in the role of a reaping angel of the last days and performing a task similar to the other reaping angel? Would the Most High Only True God actually wait subserviently for a command from the Most High Only True God to be brought to him by an angelic servant of God and then obey like any other servant?

Isn't the great "difficulty" for trinitarians here the fact that this scripture is actually strong evidence that the resurrected Son (and installed heavenly King) is still not really God ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although Watchtower Society (WTS) research and scholarship is usually at least the equal of (and often superior to) that of other sources, I have tried to rely most heavily on other sources in Christendom itself (preferably trinitarian) or my own independent research to provide evidence disproving the trinitarian `proof' being examined in this paper. The reason is, of course, that this paper is meant to provide evidence needed by non-Witnesses, and many of them will not accept anything written by the WTS. They truly believe it is false, even dishonest. Therefore some of the following information may be in disagreement with current WTS teachings in some specifics. Jehovah's Witnesses should research the most recent WTS literature on the subject or scripture in question before using this information with others.

Posted by  Elijah Daniels 

We should prepare to welcome our AI overlords?

 

Quantum technology?

 

The fossil record sides with devolution?

 Fossil Friday: New Study Confirms “Feathered Dinosaurs” Were Secondarily Flightless Birds

Günter Bechly

This Fossil Friday features one of the most well-known fossils of all, the famous Berlin specimen of the ancient bird Archaeopteryx from the Late Jurassic Solnhofen lithographic limestone in Bavaria. This iconic fossil was often considered to be a missing link between dinosaurs and birds, and thus a poster-child for fossil evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution.

In several past articles at Evolution News I have discussed the work of paleo-ornithologist Alan Feduccia, who courageously challenged the current consensus view that birds evolved from dinosaurs, as first suggested by Yale paleontologist John Ostrom in the mid 1970s with his Birds-are-Maniraptoran-Theropods (BMT) hypothesis. Feduccia elaborated his opposing views in numerous technical articles and four popular books titled “The Age of Birds“ (Feduccia 1980), “The Origin and Evolution of Birds” (Feduccia 1996), “Riddle of the Feathered Dragons” (Feduccia 2012), and most recently “Romancing the Birds and Dinosaurs” (Feduccia 2020). In a highly recommended review of the latter book, James (2021) wrote that “Every school child knows that birds are dinosaurs. Numerous magazine articles and popular books on the topic are available,” which is a remarkable success of selling a relatively recent scientific hypothesis to a wide general audience as an established fact. James continues that “in spite of all this confidence that the problem of the origin of birds has been solved, strong grounds exist for regarding the issue as unsettled, … Surely, admitting that the hypothesis that birds are maniraptoran theropods has serious problems would be better than to defend it so strongly.”

Three General Objections

In a review of Feduccia’s earlier book on the “Riddle of the Feathered Dragons,” Leigh (2014) listed three general objections by Feduccia to Ostrom’s dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis:

1.Most of the fossils used to support the theropod ancestry of birds are 20 million or more years younger than Archaeopteryx [this was famously labeled by Feduccia as a “temporal paradox”].

2.Theropod dinosaurs, Deinonychus included, were runners. It is much more reasonable to believe that, like bats and pterosaurs, birds descended from arboreal animals that evolved flight via the ability to glide.

3.The fossil record suggests that feathers evolved in connection with gliding and flying, rather than as insulation, or as part of an apparatus for catching insects, as Ostrom had suggested.

James (2021) listed several further problems that Feduccia has identified in his most recent book, which support his alternative view:

Neoflightless problem: Some flying and flightless birds are being misclassified as theropods.

Data analysis problem: Standard phylogenetic analyses are unable to detect complex evolutionary processes like convergence. Flightless birds converge on the body plan of theropods. To estimate basic similarities (homologies), anatomical studies are needed before the phylogenetic analysis.

Reduced forelimb problem: Complex characters, once lost, are unlikely to reevolve. Dollo’s Principle.

Protofeather problem: “Protofeathers” may be degraded collagen fibers.

Digit problem: The frame shift is a verificationist explanation, designed to fit the BMT.

Behavior problem: Studies that infer bird-like behavior in dinosaurs are about misidentified birds.

Confirmation problem: Scansoriopterygids have no distinctive theropod characters. An assumption that they are theropods is a form of confirmation bias. 

Geist (2022) commented in his review of the same book:

Feduccia leads readers through case after case where scientists, to accommodate the cladograms supporting the BMT hypothesis, have gone to extraordinary lengths to work around data that directly contradict their conclusions. Such efforts violate another bedrock, though not ironclad, philosophy of science: Occam’s Razor, stating that given multiple hypotheses, the simplest of competing theories be preferred over the more complex. Feduccia elegantly illustrates cases where conclusions drawn from cladistic analysis that dictate the connection between birds and dinosaurs violate this principle. At the very least this book might convince supporters of BMT to reevaluate the data.

This failure of cladistics was admitted by John Ostrom (1994: 172) himself, who commented that “reasoning of such dubious quality demonstrates a fundamental flaw in cladistic methodology. Preoccupation with compilation of lengthy lists of shared derived characteristics at the expense of a well-reasoned analysis will result in an erroneous phylogeny every time.”

Responding to Feduccia

So, how did the proponents of the dinosaurian ancestry of birds respond to Feduccia’s profound challenges? They did as Darwinists always do when their pet hypotheses are challenged with actual data: they ridicule and marginalize the critique or reduce it to a straw-man caricature. Here is what Ruben (1997) wrote in his review of Feduccia’s second book:

Specialists who are concerned with avian origins, especially those advocating a dinosaur-bird lineage, will be forced to confront a variety of previously ignored data that argue against this lineage. Thus, it hardly comes as a surprise that the book has been dismissed in recent reviews by several particularly zealous, cladistically oriented paleontologists. However, readers should not be misled by such shenanigans.

Zealous shenanigans? This is quite revealing for an alleged unbiased quest for scientific truth.

The Neoflightless Hypothesis

But, how does Feduccia explain the indisputable great similarity between vane-feathered bipedal dinosaurs (called Pennaraptora) and true birds? Actually, he does not dispute a close relationship at all, but suggests that Pennaraptora were not theropod dinosaurs but rather secondarily flightless birds, which he called the neoflightless hypothesis. Incidentally, the same claim has been made by skeptics of Darwinian evolution.

Now, a new study by Kiat & O’Connor (2024) published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides strong additional support to the neoflightless hypothesis (also see the press releases by Field Museum 2024 and Koumoundouros 2024). The scientists studied the wing feathers in hundreds of different living bird species of all major orders, and detected a simple pattern that reliably distinguishes secondarily flightless birds from those that can fly: the latter always have 9-11 asymmetrical flight feathers called primaries, while the former have either significantly more or none at all. Furthermore, the degree of primary vane asymmetry turned out to be strongly related to flight. This allowed the researchers to look at 65 species of fossil birds and feathered dinosaurs to estimate their ability to fly. Unsurprisingly, Archaeopteryx and the four-winged Microraptor passed the litmus test for flight.

Much more surprisingly, the study suggests that feathered dinosaurs like “Caudipteryx possessed the correct number of primary feathers but they were almost completely symmetrical, ‘almost certainly’ ruling out flight” (Koumoundouros 2024). The authors concluded that “applying these data to extinct pennaraptorans suggests that anchiornithines and the oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx are secondarily flightless. The phylogenetic position of these species suggests that volant abilities are plesiomorphic to Pennaraptora.” In other words, all those feathered dinosaurs originally had wings like birds and could fly, and thus do not represent transitional stages in the evolution of avian flight from cursorial dinosaurs. They are no help at all to explain the origin of pennaceous feathers and wings. This also makes very recent studies obsolete, which proposed scenarios to derive the bird wing from more primitive structures in maniraptoran dinosaurs, such as the propatagium in Caudipteryx and Microraptor (Uno & Hirasawa 2023, also see University of Tokyo 2023). As new data accumulate at an ever faster rate, the shelf life of evolutionary story telling is plummeting from decades to only months.

Trust the Science?

Should you really just trust the science (but not too long)? Alan Feduccia can rightfully claim an important empirical confirmation of his theory, and Darwinists may have to say goodbye to some cherished assumed transitional forms and the evolutionary just-so stories built upon them. But there is more: Kiat & O’Connor (2024) explicitly admit that “the results of these analyses support a single origin of dinosaurian flight and indicate the early stages of feathered wing evolution are not sampled by the currently available fossil record.” It looks very much like flying vertebrates with feathered wings appeared fully formed and abruptly in the Jurassic, which resonates perfectly with intelligent design theory, but with Darwinism (in the sense of unguided gradual evolution) not so much.

References

• Feduccia A 1980. The Age of Birds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA), ix+196 pp.
• Feduccia A 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), 420 pp. 
• Feduccia A 2012. Riddle of the Feathered Dragons: Hidden Birds of China. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), x+358 pp.
• Feduccia A 2020. Romancing the Birds and Dinosaurs: Forays in Postmodern Paleontology. Brown Walker Press, Irvine (CA), 336 pp.
• Field Museum 2024. The hidden rule for flight feathers and how it could reveal which dinosaurs could fly. Phys.org February 12, 2024. https://phys.org/news/2024-02-hidden-flight-feathers-reveal-dinosaurs.html
• Geist N 2022. Romancing the Birds and Dinosaurs: Forays in Postmodern Paleontology. Ornithology 139(3), 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithology/ukac013
• James FC 2021. How Many Dinosaurs Are Birds? Bioscience 71(9), 991–994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab060
• Kiat Y & O’Connor JK 2024. Functional constraints on the number and shape of flight feathers. PNAS 121(8): e2306639121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2306639121
• Koumoundouros T 2024. Scientists Discover an Ancient Pattern Hidden in The Feathers of Birds. ScienceAlert February 25, 2024. https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-discover-an-ancient-pattern-hidden-in-the-feathers-of-birds
• Leigh EG 2014. Alan Feduccia’s Riddle of the Feathered Dragons: what reptiles gave rise to birds? Evolution: Education and Outreach 7: 9, 1–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-014-0009-0
• Ostrom JH 1994. On the origin of birds and of avian flight. pp. 160–177 in: Prothero DP & Schoch RS (eds). Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville (TN), 270 pp.
• Ruben J 1997. The fuss over feathers. BioScience 47(6), 392–395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1313154
• University of Tokyo 2023. How birds got their wings. Phys.org February 24, 2023. https://phys.org/news/2023-02-birds-wings.html
• Uno Y & Hirasawa T 2023. Origin of the propatagium in non-avian dinosaurs. Zoological Letters 9: 4, 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40851-023-00204-x

Even Darwinists are admitting that junk DNA is junk no more?

 

Yet more on junk DNA's exposure as junk science.

 

There is no man called Jesus Christ?

 Luke ch.2:11NIV"Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord."

JEHOVAH Continues to school his would be correctors

 Is the Panda’s Thumb Suboptimal?

Stephen Dilley

In a classic argument, Stephen Jay Gould claimed that the panda’s thumb was suboptimal and, thus, counted as evidence in favor of evolution over special creation. In the contemporary era, this argument has become something of an icon as well as a broader symbol of the apparent problem of suboptimality in nature.1 If nature is the product of an intelligent designer, why are some biological phenomena so poorly made? In a recent peer-reviewed essay in the journal Religions, I revisited Gould’s argument as a way into this question and others like it.2 In a series of five posts here, of which this is the first, I will analyze the subject in some detail.

Here is the abstract of my article for Religions:

The panda’s thumb argument, championed by the late Stephen Jay Gould, stands as one of the most famous polemics for common ancestry. In this essay, I analyze Gould’s argument in several steps. First, I attempt to reconstruct the argument in both deductive and likelihood formulations. I contend that both versions of the argument rest on a theological claim — roughly, that God would not (likely) create or allow a suboptimal panda’s thumb. I then argue that a wide range of people are not rationally obligated to accept this theological claim. Next, I give special attention to the likelihood formulation’s emphasis on a contrastive argument for evolution over special creation. I contend that a great number of people are not rationally obligated to accept this formulation either. I next consider and reply to an objection that Gould never intended the panda argument as an apologetic for evolution (and an attack on special creation) but rather as a critique of adaptationism. Finally, I argue that the panda argument conflicts with Gould’s broader views about the human mind and the relationship between theology and science. I also note along the way that the shortcomings of the panda argument apply to a number of other arguments for evolutionary theory. To be sure, I do not criticize evolution itself or the comprehensive grounds for it. Instead, my primary aims are to analyze the panda argument and suggest that caution is in order about similar arguments as well.

Let’s first consider the crucial empirical question of whether the panda’s thumb is indeed suboptimal. Is it “clumsy” and “highly inefficient,” as Gould claims it to be? Or does it perform its function just fine? In subsequent posts, I will analyze more philosophical questions and topics: Is the panda argument a problem for intelligent design scientists? And is the panda argument a problem for evolutionists? 

Clumsy, Clumsy, Clumsy

As to the question of suboptimality, the answer centers on the thumb’s function. Gould thinks it does its job in a mediocre way. He notes that Darwin thought much the same about orchids. Gould explains:

The panda’s thumb provides an elegant zoological counterpart to Darwin’s orchids. An engineer’s best solution is debarred by history. The panda’s thumb is committed to another role, too specialized for a different function to become an opposable, manipulating digit. So the panda must use parts on hand and settle for an enlarged wrist bone and a somewhat clumsy, but quite workable solution. The sesamoid thumb wins no prize in an engineer’s derby.3

He also explains:

The panda’s “thumb” demonstrates evolution because it is clumsy and built from an odd part, the radial sesamoid bone of the wrist. The true thumb had been so shaped in its ancestral role as the running and clawing digit of a carnivore that it could not be modified into an opposable grasper for bamboo in a vegetarian descendant.4

At the heart of Gould’s argument is the claim that the panda’s thumb is “clumsy” or, as he says elsewhere, “highly inefficient.”5

Gould explains that suboptimality favors evolution whereas “ideal design” favors special creation.

[I]deal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator. Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution — paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.6

The basic argument is that “[o]dd arrangements and funny solutions” point to evolution whereas “ideal design” points to a “sensible God.” Given that the panda’s thumb “wins no prize in an engineer’s derby,” it supports evolution rather than divine design.

The Empirical Evidence

Yet the scientific data say otherwise. As I explain in the article:

Oddly, Gould does not give strong reasons to accept this claim [that the panda’s thumb is suboptimal]; nowhere in his writings does he provide a detailed empirical study that demonstrates the suboptimality of the panda’s thumb. The major research that Gould relies upon, Dwight Davis’s study, used a dead panda for its conclusions about comparative morphology; it did not examine how effective living pandas are at stripping bamboo leaves. Biologist John Gittleman notes that the analyses of both Davis and Gould arose “despite any real information on how the giant panda lives in nature.”7

Two major studies gave high praise to the function and efficiency of the panda’s thumb:

The first major study of living pandas — focusing specifically on their adaptation to bamboo — was conducted by George Schaller’s team, which published its results in The Giant Pandas of Wolong. They observed that pandas “efficiently bring food to the mouth with their forepaws” and “handle bamboo stems with great precision by holding them as if with forceps in the hairless groove connecting the pad of the first digit and pseudothumb.”8

Schaller and his team reported:

When watching a panda eat leaves, stem or new shoots we were always impressed by its dexterity. Forepaws and mouth work together with great precision, with great economy of motion, as the food is grasped, plucked, peeled, stripped, bitten and otherwise prepared for being swallowed. Actions are fluid and rapid…9

Similarly, in 1999, a team of Japanese scientists conducted perhaps the most sophisticated analysis of the panda’s thumb to date. They used “computed topography, magnetic resonance imaging, and live observation to analyze the structure and function of the panda’s thumb.” They reported that the thumb 

and its accessories enable the panda to “manipulate objects with great dexterity.” In fact, the “way in which the giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca, uses the radial sesamoid bone — its ‘pseudo-thumb’ — for grasping makes it one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution.” They conclude that “the hand of the giant panda has a much more refined grasping mechanism than has been suggested in previous morphological models,” including Davis’s model.10

Turning the Tables

Gould’s claim is mistaken. The panda’s thumb is not suboptimal. The best studies we have conclude that the thumb is anything but “clumsy” or “highly inefficient.” Instead, they describe it as having “great precision,” “great economy of motion,” and “great dexterity.” It may even rank as “one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems” among mammals. That is quite an accolade.

Indeed, one might rather regard the thumb as positive evidence for intelligent design. A system of such precision, efficiency, economy, and dexterity is a spectacle of a high order. That sounds very much like the kind of sophistication that only engineers produce. 

On this score, recall the way Gould himself framed the panda argument: “[o]dd arrangements and funny solutions” point to evolution whereas “ideal design” points to a “sensible God.”11 So, by this logic, the panda’s thumb appears to count as stronger evidence in favor of design. Perhaps it’s time to champion the panda’s thumb not as an icon for evolution but for intelligent design

Notes

See Dilley, “God, Gould, and the Panda’s Thumb,” p. 1.

Stephen Dilley. 2023. “God, Gould, and the Panda’s Thumb.” Religions 14: 1006. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/rel14081006.

Stephen Jay Gould. 1980. The Panda’s Thumb. New York: W.W. Norton, p. 24.

Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p. 29, original emphasis.

Stephen Jay Gould. 1986. “Evolution and the Triumph of Homology, Or Why History Matters.” American Scientist 74: 60-69, esp. p. 63.

Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p. 20-21.

Dilley, “God, Gould, and the Panda’s Thumb,” p. 11. For the Gittleman quote, see John L. Gittleman. 1985. “Review of The Giant Pandas of Wolong.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 60: 524. 

Dilley, “God, Gould, and the Panda’s Thumb,” p. 11. For the Schaller quote, see George B. Schaller, Hu Jinchu, Pan Wenshi, and Zhu Jing. 1985. The Giant Pandas of Wolong. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 4, 215.

Schaller et al., The Giant Pandas of Wolong, p. 58.

Dilley, “God, Gould, and the Panda’s Thumb,” p. 11. See also Hideki Endo, Daishiro Yamagiwa, Yoshihiro Hayashi, Hiroshi Koie, Yoshiki Yamaya, and Junpei Kimura. 1999. “Role of the Giant Panda’s ‘Pseudo-thumb’.” Nature 397: 309-10.

Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p. 20-21.

Engineerless engineering is a thing?

 Design Without a Designer? New Book Says Yes!

Daniel Witt

The more we learn about living systems, the harder they are to explain without invoking teleology — purpose, planning, goal. If an intelligent designer is off the table, this creates a dilemma for some. 

Wouldn’t it be great if you could have your cake and eat it too — have design, without a designer? In 2023, MIT Press released an edited volume of papers by prominent biologists and philosophers of science titled Evolution “On Purpose”: Teleonomy in Living Systems. The purpose of the volume is to promote the theory of “teleonomy.” Teleonomy is “internal teleology” — goal-directedness that comes from within a system, not from outside. Under this theory, there need be no God (or aliens, or Platonic or Aristotelian forms, or anything of the sort) guiding the development of living systems; the living systems themselves set the goals.

The “Unspoken” Inference 

Biologist Peter Corning, one of the editors of the volume, writes: 

The evolution of humankind is undoubtedly the most striking example of how teleonomy has exerted a shaping influence in biological evolution, but a case can be made that teleonomy was also involved in many of the great turning points and transitions in the history of life on Earth, including the earliest colonization of the seafloor, the emergence of the eukaryotes, the migration of life forms from the oceans onto the land, the rise of multicellular organisms, the development of land plants and trees, the origin of fish, birds, and mammals, the invention of social organization, the division of labor (task specialization), and more. 

Teleonomy is also an implicit (though unspoken) influence in connection with many other familiar terms, I would argue, including “symbiogenesis,” “organic selection theory,” evolutionary “pacemakers,” the “Baldwin effect,” “major transitions theory,” “niche construction theory,” “gene-culture coevolution theory,” “natural genetic engineering,” many examples of “semiosis,” and, recently, the concept of “agency” in evolution. These terms all suggest the role of purposive behavior. A radically different view of evolution has been emerging in this century. We now know that living systems actively shape their own evolution, in various ways.

In other words, Corning is saying that all sorts of evolutionary theories contain the hidden assumption of purposiveness, i.e., design. This is an important admission, since it’s what ID theorists have been saying. 

Of course, he differs on where this design comes from. But it’s worth noting that the thesis of teleonomy implicitly acknowledges the validity of the design inference. If you can infer design in nature, you can infer design in nature. Period. Then you can decide whether it comes from within or from without.

That means that if the teleonomic explanation (“living systems actively shape their own evolution”) doesn’t hold up, the old alternative hypothesis will be there, waiting. 

Is Teleonomy a Good Explanation? 

So, does the teleonomic explanation hold up? Well, we have to ask: where does “teleonomy” come from? Why does it exist? 

The answer, according to Evolution “On Purpose”, is that it come from… drum roll… evolution. In addition to causing evolution. 

The term “teleonomy,” Corning writes, was coined “to draw a contrast between an ‘external’ teleology (Aristotelian or religious) and the ‘internal’ purposiveness and goal-directedness of living systems, which are products of the evolutionary process and of natural selection.” However, teleonomy is “not simply a product of natural selection. It is also an important cause of natural selection and has been a major shaping influence over time in biological evolution.” Conversely, natural selection “has been both a cause of this purposiveness and an outcome.”

This is not, in itself, illogical. You could have two forces at work — purpose and natural selection — that synergistically encourage each other, in a sort of positive feedback loop. But then, you still have to explain how the feedback loop got started. 

Imagine that someone asks an evolutionary biologist where chickens came from. 

“Eggs,” the scientist replies. 

“Where did eggs come from?” his interlocuter replies. 

“Chickens!” says the scientist. 

The problem with this explanation is not that it is false. As it happens, it is quite true. The problem is that it fails to explain. It does not answer the question that was really being asked.

Likewise, “teleonomy” fails to explain. The design of nature requires an explanation, an ultimate explanation. Rather than explain, invoking “teleonomy” just dodges the question. If we say that natural selection and random variation cannot explain something, evolutionary biologists can say, “Well, it’s not random variation, it’s goal-oriented.” If we ask where the goal-oriented-ness itself came from, they will say “natural selection.” The question returns to where it began; a final cause for the existence of design in nature has yet to be proposed.

Avoiding the Question

I suspect it will never be proposed, because the point is to sweep the problem under the rug by obscuring it in a complexity of causes. The theory of teleonomy does not address — is not even in dialogue with — the arguments of, say, Michael Behe or William Dembski that unguided processes simply cannot generate novel information or irreducibly complex systems. But it does make it harder to apply those arguments, because there is nothing concrete to discuss. We are not talking about a bacterial flagellum, or an eye, or even a brain — we are talking about a vague internal “purposiveness.” This purposiveness, if it exists and is not supernatural, would have to arise from some organized and complex system. But the exact nature of that system is hidden somewhere in an endless chain of “purposiveness caused by natural selection caused by purposiveness caused by natural selection…” going back who knows how far.

In future posts, I plan to discuss some of the specific mechanisms for evolution proposed in the Evolution “On Purpose”anthology. However, this is the basic problem that underlies the whole endeavor. At the end of the day, ordered complexity requires either extreme luck or intentional planning. The idea that life itself did this planning may sound like a clever work-around, but in the end it’s no better than the idea of a god who created himself. 

Nothing can create itself. Everything has a cause, until you get back to some eternal First Cause. Any attempt to avoid that logical destination is just stalling. 

Information is in the mind of the informed?

 The Connection Between Intelligence and Information

Willam Dembski

The key intuition behind the concept of information is the narrowing of possibilities. The more that possibilities are narrowed down, the greater the information. If I tell you I’m on planet Earth, I haven’t conveyed any information because you already knew that (let’s leave aside space travel). If I tell you I’m in the United States, I’ve begun to narrow down where I am in the world. If I tell you I’m in Texas, I’ve narrowed down my location further. If I tell you I’m forty miles north of Dallas, I’ve narrowed my location down even further. As I keep narrowing down my location, I’m providing you with more and more information.

Information is therefore, in its essence, exclusionary: the more possibilities are excluded, the greater the information provided. As philosopher Robert Stalnaker put it in his book Inquiry: “To learn something, to acquire information, is to rule out possibilities. To understand the information conveyed in a communication is to know what possibilities would be excluded by its truth.” I’m excluding much more of the world when I say I’m in Texas forty miles north of Dallas as opposed to when I say I’m merely in the United States. Accordingly, to say I’m in Texas north of Dallas conveys much more information than simply to say I’m in the United States.

An Exclusionary Understanding

The etymology of the word information is congruent with this exclusionary understanding of information. The word information derives from the Latin preposition in, meaning in or into, and the verb formare, meaning to give shape to. Information puts definite shape into something. But that means ruling out other shapes. Information narrows down the shape in question. A completely unformed shmoo is waiting in limbo to receive information. But until it is given definite shape, it exhibits no information.

The fundamental intuition of information as narrowing down possibilities matches up neatly with the concept of intelligence. The word intelligence derives from two Latin words: the preposition inter, meaning between, and the verb legere, meaning to choose. Intelligence thus, at its most fundamental, signifies the ability to choose between. But when a choice is made, some possibilities are actualized to the exclusion of others, implying the narrowing of possibilities. And so, an act of intelligence is also an act of information.

A Narrowing of Possibilities

A synonym for the word choose is decide. This last word is likewise from the Latin, combining the preposition de, meaning down from, and the verb caedere, meaning to cut off or kill (compare our English word homicide). Decisions, in keeping with this etymology, raise up some possibilities by cutting down, or killing off, others. When you decide to marry one person, you cut off all the other people you might marry. An act of decision is therefore always a narrowing of possibilities. It is an informational act. But given the definition of intelligence as choosing between, it is also an intelligent act.

Given the etymology of information and intelligence, it’s obvious that the two are related notions. The million dollar question in connecting the two is how we can know when an intelligence is actually responsible for an item of information. Information can happen naturally — a rock falls naturally here rather than there. But information can also happen intelligently — a rock may be put deliberately here rather than there. So how do we tell the difference? 

Answering that question is the whole point of specified complexity and the design inference. If you’ve got the time and inclination to probe this question deeply, get the book: William A. Dembski and Winston Ewert, The Design Inference, 2nd edition. Otherwise, stay tuned here — I’ll be providing a user-friendly synopsis of how to know when an intelligence is responsible for information.

Postscript

The featured image here may look like a random inkblot, but it’s not. Many people don’t at first see what’s there. Once they see it, they know that the information there is the product of intelligence. But until then, they would be within their rights to think that it’s just a random naturally-formed inkblot.

Tangible evidence for design?

 Sense of Touch Is More Finely Tuned than We Thought

David Coppedge

“Reach out and touch someone.” Some may remember that old TV commercial. Bell Telephone appealed to the human need for communication to grow its business, implying that a phone call was the next best thing to a hug or handshake. At a scale five orders of magnitude smaller, cells also like to reach out and touch their neighbors. They respond not with ears and fingers, but with channels that open on contact, making intercellular communication come alive.

In a previous article about active transport and selectivity filters, we marveled at the precision alignment of amino acid residues in the CFTR channel that employ electrostatic forces to authenticate chloride ions passing through a narrow “selectivity filter” required for entry. CFTR channels remain open all the time for their chloride ion customers. Others require a touch, like the push of a button on a vending machine, to activate. 

A Biological Piezoelectric Effect

One such channel has an interesting name, Piezo2, reminiscent of the piezoelectric effect in physics where applying mechanical stress to certain materials generates electricity. You may have seen a demonstration of this effect when a physics teacher hit a quartz rock with a hammer and generated sparks. In a related way but with different physics, Piezo channels are touch sensitive, and indeed are crucial for our sense of touch.

We have numerous Piezo1 channels in our skin, which respond on contact by opening to let Ca2+ ions flood into the cell, triggering neural signals interpreted by the brain as touch. Piezo2-deficiency syndrome, caused by mutations in the PIEZO2 gene, manifests as decreased touch sensation and proprioception, leading to difficulty walking and loss of coordination. The Piezo2 channel has a curious shape, with a dome of three curved arms that look like propeller blades.

News from the Max Delbrück Center adds a partner to Piezo2. 

Every hug, every handshake, every dexterous act engages and requires touch perception. Therefore, it is essential to understand the molecular basis of touch. “Until now, we had known that the ion channel — Piezo2 — is required for touch perception, but it was clear that this protein alone cannot explain the entirety of touch sensation,” says Professor Gary Lewin, head of the Molecular Physiology of Somatic Sensation Lab at the Max Delbrück Center.

For over 20 years Lewin has been studying the molecular basis of the sensation of touch. He and his team have now discovered a new ion channel, named Elkin1, that plays a vital role in touch perception. This is only the second ion channel implicated in the touch perception.

Like other ion channels, Elkin1 is anything but simple. It contains 7 transmembrane proteins with a well-defined structure and selectivity filter. Lewin’s team, who published their findings in Science, first noticed that mice without functional Elkin1 often had reduced touch sensitivity. Then they checked to see if the two mechanically activated (MA) channels cooperated. Strangely, they did not — at least directly. Elkin1, instead, interacts with StomL3, a modulator of Piezo2 sensitivity. Further tests revealed a cooperative role in these three proteins that permits response to low-threshold mechanoreceptors (LTMRs).

Our data support a model in which ELKIN1 and PIEZO2 channels share roles in sensory mechanotransduction in LTMRs and in which both channels can be modulated by STOML3. There is evidence that STOML3 can also modulate MA currents in nociceptors, which is consistent with a role for ELKIN1 in conferring robustness to the C-fiber responses to force. The identification of ELKIN1 as a mechanically gated ion channel necessary for somatosensory function increases our understanding of the entirety of touch transduction.

Cooperation between these three actors gives an animal a wide range of touch sensitivity, from a quick light touch to constant pressure at the point of pain. The take-home lesson is that the sense of touch now looks more complex and more finely tuned than thought. One mechanoreceptor is not enough for exquisite responses to touch, whether it be a hug, handshake, or dexterous act.

Touch-Sensitive Tissue Repairmen

An open access paper by a team from Yale in Science Advances tells about another discovery in mechanosensation. Macrophages, part of the immune system, reside in the extracellular matrix of many tissues. When they sense a disturbance in the force, they slither about like amoebas to the site of repair. Having DNA credentials, they can also signal the nucleus to send reinforcements.

Tissue-resident macrophages play important roles in tissue homeostasis and repair. However, how macrophages monitor and maintain tissue integrity is not well understood. The extracellular matrix (ECM) is a key structural and organizational component of all tissues. Here, we find that macrophages sense the mechanical properties of the ECM to regulate a specific tissue repair program. We show that macrophage mechanosensing is mediated by cytoskeletal remodeling and can be performed in three-dimensional environments through a noncanonical, integrin-independent mechanism analogous to amoeboid migration.We find that these cytoskeletal dynamics also integrate biochemical signaling by colony-stimulating factor 1 and ultimately regulate chromatin accessibility to control the mechanosensitive gene expression program. This study identifies an “amoeboid” mode of ECM mechanosensing through which macrophages may regulate tissue repair and fibrosis.

Lysosomes: Organelles with Mechanosensitive Channels

Not all mechanosensitive channels reside on the external lipid membranes of cells. Here’s one on the membrane of an important organelle: the lysosome. Li et al., publishing in Nature (open access), explored a protein named TMEM63 that works in a mechanosensitive channel on the membranes of lysosomes. Erika Reiderer and Dejian Ren, commenting on this paper in the same Nature issue, describe the lysosome as “a vital organelle with an acidic pH that digests and recycles cellular materials thanks to more than 50 digestive enzymes and many transporters.” Now, one of those parts turns out to be an intercellular mechanosensitive ion channel.

Because lysosomes are embedded in signaling networks with other organelles, it makes sense that they often feel the need to reach out and touch someone. The busy interior of a cell makes contacts unavoidable and frequent. A figure in the commentary shows mechanical stimuli impinging on the lysosome’s membrane in various ways. The TMEM3 channels interact with signals from other organelles such as mitochondria, peroxisomes, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) via their tethering proteins, effectors and transporters; microtubules being carried by motor proteins; endosomes coming in from the exterior; nutrient sensors via the mTORC1 pathway; and possibly mechanical signals from the V-ATP rotary motors embedded in the lysosomal membrane. (V-ATPases, by the way, rotate similarly to ATP synthase, but hydrolyze ATP for protons to acidify the interior of the lysosome.) A politician could hardly shake more hands than these contact-sensitive TMEM63 channels do constantly!

Li’s team was able to measure electrical currents in these TMEM63 channels, which is truly remarkable, given that they were measuring conductance on the membranes of tiny organelles in response to mechanical forces inside the cells of fruit flies! They even measured the pressure that triggered the responses. What amazing times we live in, where such measurements are possible, and we can image the molecular machines themselves. The team also investigated comparable channels named TMEM63A in mice, one of three mammalian counterparts found in our bodies, too. No mention was made of evolution, other than to note that all these homologues are “evolutionarily conserved” — i.e., unevolved.

Reiderer and Ren consider this a groundbreaking discovery ripe for more research. 

The Li et al. study opens a new frontier in lysosomal physiology. As with many other groundbreaking discoveries, it also prompts more questions than answers. How is lysosomal TMEM63 opened by mechanical force? Does it functionally or physically interact with other, better-known lysosomal channels to coordinate lysosomal physiology and cellular signalling? How does a mechanosensing channel regulate a lysosomal function as basic as substrate digestion? Is the channel also regulated by organelle membrane lipids and extracellular cues, such as nutrients and growth factors? Finally, the mechanisms for sensing mechanical forceby plasma membranes are — somewhat annoyingly to physiologists — highly diverse between cells and across species. Are the mechanisms used by lysosomes more uniform? With the newly found role of TMEM63, it is hoped that these questions can be answered shortly.

Answers will come from engineers specializing in biophysics. It’s the kind of research favorable to ID, where scientists investigate a phenomenon on the assumption that if something exists and is working, it has a purpose.