Re: I am requesting your help involving Daniel 9:24-27

AN

Thanks for your message. As per my policy when I receive a

Above: An 18th century Russian icon of the prophet Daniel, Kizhi monastery, Russia: Wikipedia]

private message on one of my blog posts, in this case, Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!, I will respond in due course via that blog, CED, minus your personal identifying information. Your words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:11 PM
Subject: For Mr. Jones

> ... I am requesting your help here if that's ok involving the famous Daniel 9:24-27 passage, Mr. Jones. ...
>
>If I understand this correctly, in order to effectively conclude that the "Weeks" described specifically in Daniel 9:24-25 can be assumed to mean "Years" here-thus, the seventy "Sevens" of YEARS specifically, the Hebrew term for "Weeks" here, "Shabuwa'," which I understand WOULD BE the masculine, or "Shabua'," would have to unmistakably appear as such in the ancient Hebrew scrolls.

As explained in footnote 19 of my Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!, "The Heb. shebu`im here" in Dn 9:24-26 translated "weeks" (KJV) or more accurately "sevens" (NIV) "is masculine, whereas the normal gender of seven, as in a seven-day week, is feminine, thus indicating that time units other than ordinary seven-day weeks is here intended":

[19] The Heb. shebu`im here is literally "sevens." (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, 1980, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1992, Twelfth Printing, p.2:899). The Heb. here is masculine, whereas the normal gender of seven, as in a seven-day week, is feminine, thus indicating that time units other than ordinary seven-day weeks is here intended (Archer, G.L., 1982, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.289). Clearly ordinary weeks of seven days cannot be intended, because then after 70 weeks (i.e. about a year and four months) Daniel would have been discredited as a false prophet (Archer, G.L., "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, Vol. 7, p.121).

Here are quotes to support that:

"Daniel 9:24 reads: `Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and your holy city ....' The word for `week' is sabuac, which is derived from seba` the word for `seven.' Its normal plural is feminine in form: sebu`ot. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appear in the masculine plural sabu`im. (The only other occurrence is in the combination sebu`e sebu`ot ['heptads of weeks'] in Ezek. ... 21:23 ...). Therefore, it is strongly suggestive of the idea `heptad' (a series or combination of seven), rather than a `week' in the sense of a series of seven days. There is no doubt that in this case we are presented with seventy sevens of years rather than of days." (Archer, 1982, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," p.289).

"The `seventy `sevens' are usually understood to be `weeks' of years ... the usual feminine form for `week,' ... is not used here. ... what Daniel means by these seventy `heptads' is seventy units of seven years, or `seventy' times `seven' years (i.e., 490 years)." (Kaiser, 1995, "The Messiah in the Old Testament," p.202).

"[Dn 9:24]. ... Seventy sevens ... The word sevens here occurs in the m.pl. [masculine plural], whereas it generally has a f.pl. [feminine plural] ... What led Dan. to employ the m. [masculine] instead of the f. [feminine] however, is not clear unless it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense. .... It seems obvious that ordinary weeks of 7 days are not intended." (Young, 1972, "A Commentary on Daniel," pp.195-196).

>Here again, I don't know anything about the Hebrew language or the ancient writings, and thus I am concerned about the fact that according to the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the amateur like myself cannot seem to determine whether the term appears in the masculine or feminine since Strong's also lists its feminine form of the Hebrew as a potential relation to the "Seventy weeks" term-"Shebu'ah."

It is not the "seventy" that is the key word but the "sevens". It is the latter "sevens" or "weeks" which are the time units. "Seventy" is just the normal 70 times whatever the "sevens" time units are, i.e. 70 x 7 years = 490 years.

>For the English "Seventy" translated from the Hebrew, however, I have noted that 7651 does seem to demand the masculine according to the Strong's-"Sheba'," or "Shib'ah."

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance numbers are only to the roots of Heb. and Gk. words, not to every variant grammatical form of those words:

"Not every distinct word is assigned a number, but only the root words. For example, agapeseis is assigned the same number as agapate - both are listed as Greek word #25 in Strong's `agapao'." ("Strong's Concordance," Wikipedia. My transliteration)

Also, you are looking up the Strong's number for the wrong word, "seventy." The Strong's number for "sevens" is 7620, i.e.:

"Strong's Number: 07620 ... Shabuwa ... Noun Masculine ... seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week period of seven days, a week Feast of Weeks heptad, seven (of years)" ("The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon," Crosswalk.com).

>Thus, according to the Hebrew language, is this a situation that because the "Seventy" can, beyond any doubt, be associated to the concept of "Years" that one is fully, unmistakably allowed to consider the conjoined "Seventy weeks" as a DIRECT association to YEARS? If so, why is this fundamentally true if in fact the actual "Weeks" cannot be determined to be masculine or feminine?

See above where you are confusing the "seventy" which just means literally seventy (i.e. 70 multiplied by whatever the "sevens" time units are), with the "sevens" which are the time units and in the context mean "sevens of years":

"shabua`. A period of seven ... in Dan 9:24,25,26,27 it denotes a period of seven years in each of its appearances in these four verses. This is proven by the context wherein Daniel recognizes that the seventy-year period of captivity is almost over. ...the angel Gabriel appears and informs him that Israel's restoration will not be complete until she goes through another seventy periods-of-seven, shabua' (Dan 9:24ff)!" (Harris, et al., eds, 1980, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," p.2:899).

>.... while I can see beyond any doubt that the city of Jerusalem could never have possibly been rebuilt over a period of 7x69 days, while such would seem just as unlikely, one would have to at least question the possibility that such could have been completed over a nine year period (69x7 actual weeks=9 years) depending specifically what God had in mind here.

See above. The city of Jerusalem was in fact to be rebuilt in the

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Traditional View" of Daniel 9:24-27 (Smith, 1993, "What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah," p.390).]

first "seven `sevens'" (Dn 9:25). If (as I maintain), the terminus a quo (starting point) is 457 BC, when Ezra returned to Jerusalem in the seventh regnal year of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7:12-26) and the "sevens" time units are ordinary solar years, then that fits very well with "the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed":

"Verse 25 ...`From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One [massiah], the ruler, comes, there will be seven sevens,' and sixty-two `sevens.' ` It should be observed that only sixty-nine heptads are listed here, broken into two segments. The first segment of seven amounts to forty-nine years, during which the city of Jerusalem is to be `rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.' ... If, then, the terminus a quo for the decree in v.25 be reckoned as 457 B.C. (the date of Ezra's return to Jerusalem), then we may compute the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed." (Archer, 1985, "Daniel," pp.7:113-114).

>At that point, I suppose the final requirement would be to go to the history books regarding the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple itself and determine specifically when such had been completed as it would related to the decree to rebuild the city and Temple itself. Thus, if history would be able to prove the fact that the city's reconstruction was not complete by 400 BC via the highly liberal estimation here, this would in fact prove to me that the prophecy really was intended to be about Jesus Himself.

I don't know why you think that if "the city's reconstruction was not complete by 400 BC ... this would in fact prove ... that the prophecy really was intended to be about Jesus Himself." If the "issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" was the that of Artaxerxes I in 457 BC to Ezra, then Jerusalem and its temple would be "rebuilt with streets and a trench ... in times of trouble" in the period 457-408 BC:

"we may compute the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed." (Archer, 1985, "Daniel," pp.7:113-114).

which in fact is what happened:

"... A period of seven weeks or forty-nine years came to a close about 408 B.C., and the reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah was conducted during this period and characterized this period as a whole. ... Nehemiah's successor, who was a Persian ... was in office in 411 B.C., before the close of the seventh week." (Davis, 1924, "A Dictionary of the Bible," p.163).

"Finally, in 445 BC, Ezra was joined by a powerful contingent headed by a leading Jew and prominent Persian official called Nehemiah, who was given the governorship of Judah ... This fourth wave at last succeeded in stabilizing the settlement ... Nehemiah ... rebuilt with commendable speed the walls of Jerusalem ... The rebuilt city was smaller than Solomon's. ... The years 400-200 BC are the lost centuries of Jewish history. There were no great events or calamities they chose to record." (Johnson, 1987, "A History of the Jews," pp.86-87).

"... the whole period of 70 weeks is divided into three successive periods, 7, 62, 1 ... the division would be unmeaning, unless something were assigned to this first portion. The text does assign it. It says, the street shall be restored and be builded; and that, in troublous times. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah give the explanation. Ezra came to Jerusalem, B.C. 457 ... Nehemiah was sent by Artaxerxes, B.C. 444. ... Ezra and Nehemiah conjointly, a time somewhat exceeding 45 years; so that ... the restoration was completed in the latter part of the 7th week of years ...." (Pusey, 1885, "Daniel the Prophet, pp.189-191).

Note that in the first "seven `sevens'" during which "Jerusalem ... will be rebuilt with streets and a trench" would be "times of trouble" (Dn 9:25). But by 400 AD, the city was rebuilt and there were "no great events or calamities" recorded for the next 2 centuries. So the city's reconstruction was complete by 400 BC.

And also note that if the starting point is 457/458 BC and the time units ordinary solar years, then 7 + 62 = 69 "sevens" would be 69 x 7 = 483 years from 457/458, and after adding 1 since there is no year 0 between 1BC and AD 1, the ending point of the 69th "seven" is 26/27 AD. Which `just happens' to be the very year of Jesus' baptism and the beginning His public ministry! :

"If, then, the decree of 457 granted to Ezra himself is taken as the terminus a quo for the commencement of the 69 heptads ... we come out to the precise year of the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah ... 483 minus 457 comes out to A.D. 26. But since a year is gained in passing from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 ... it actually comes out to A.D. 27." (Archer, 1982, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," pp.290-291).

"Then from 408 we count off the sixty-two heptads also mentioned in v.25 and come out to ... A.D. 27, since a year is gained in our reckoning as we pass directly from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 (without any year zero in between)." (Archer, 1985, "Daniel," pp.7:113-114).

"Using the date of 457 B.C.E. as our starting point ... and putting the two sets of weeks together (7 x 7 + 7 x 62), we would arrive at a total of 483 years, ending in 27 C.E.-the very year that Jesus began his public ministry ... because there is no `zero year.' ... from 1 B.C.E.. to 1 C.E. ... What an incredibly accurate prophecy this would be!" (Brown, 2003, "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus," pp.102, 220).

"The decree to rebuild Jerusalem, as noted above, was 457 B.C. Adding 483 years to 457 B.C. brings us to A.D. 26, the very year that Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry. A most remarkable fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, even to the year." (Halley, 1965, "Halley's Bible Handbook," p.349).

"The terminus a quo for the commencement of these sixty nine weeks of years is stated to be from the going forth of the word (or decree) to restore and build Jerusalem (ver 25). This may refer to ... (2) the order of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C. .... Only (2) comes out right according to regular solar years, for it yields the result as A.D. 27, or the commencement of Christ's ministry." (Lindsell, 1964, "Harper Study Bible," pp.1312-1313).

"The term also corresponds. Unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks [v.25 ... But 483 years from the beginning of B.C. 457 were completed at the beginning of 27 A.D. which ... would coincide with His Baptism, `being about 30 years of age,' when the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him manifested Him to be the Anointed with the Holy Ghost, the Christ." (Pusey, 1885, "Daniel the Prophet, p.189).

"... Ezra the Scribe .... issued the word to restore and to build Jerusalem in the spring of 457 B.C. ... from that date seven sevens and sixty two sevens of years would elapse before the appearance of Messiah-Prince. ... Subtracting 483 years from the starting point of 457 B.C. the year A.D. 27 is reached. ... there is no year zero. Hence the year A.D. 27 must be reduced by one .... According to Daniel, Messiah-Prince would appear in A.D. 26. It is surely more than a coincidence that the baptism of Jesus occurred in A.D. 26. ..." (Smith, 1993, "What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah," p.386).

Therefore Christianity is true and Naturalism is false!

>... if you can help me, here again I would appreciate that ever so much. ... thank you ....
>
AN

I hope this has helped, albeit belatedly.

The quotes below (emphasis italics original, emphasis bold mine) are hyperlinked to the inline references above.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
Blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign, TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"How can we make any sense out of Daniel's prophecy of Seventy Weeks? The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9:24-27 is one of the most remarkable long-range predictions in the entire Bible. It is by all odds one of the most widely discussed by students and scholars of every persuasion within the spectrum of the Christian church. And yet when it is carefully examined in the light of all the relevant data of history and the information available from other parts of Scripture, it is quite clearly an accurate prediction of the time of Christ's coming advent and a preview of the thrilling final act of the drama of human history before that advent. Daniel 9:24 reads: `Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and your holy city [i.e., for the nation Israel and for Jerusalem].' The word for `week' is sabuac, which is derived from seba` the word for `seven.' Its normal plural is feminine in form: sebu`ot. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appear in the masculine plural sabu`im. (The only other occurrence is in the combination sebu`e sebu`ot ['heptads of weeks'] in Ezek. 21:28 [21:23 English text]). Therefore, it is strongly suggestive of the idea `heptad' (a series or combination of seven), rather than a `week' in the sense of a series of seven days. There is no doubt that in this case we are presented with seventy sevens of years rather than of days. This leads to a total of 490 years." (Archer, G.L., 1982, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.289).

"If, then, the decree of 457 granted to Ezra himself is taken as the terminus a quo for the commencement of the 69 heptads, or 483 years, we come out to the precise year of the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah (or Christ): 483 minus 457 comes out to A.D. 26. But since a year is gained in passing from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 (there being no such year as zero), it actually comes out to A.D. 27. It is generally agreed that Christ was crucified in A.D. 30, after a ministry of a little more than three years. This means His baptism and initial ministry must have taken place in A.D. 27. A most remarkable exactitude in the fulfillment of such an ancient prophecy. Only God could have predicted the coming of His Son with such amazing precision; it defies all rationalistic explanation." (Archer, 1982, pp.290-291).

"[Dn 9:25-26] Verse 25 is crucial: `From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One [massiah], the ruler, comes, there will be seven sevens,' and sixty-two `sevens.' ` It should be observed that only sixty-nine heptads are listed here, broken into two segments. The first segment of seven amounts to forty-nine years, during which the city of Jerusalem is to be `rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.' ... we note that v.25 specifies the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem with streets and moats, which will be completed within forty-nine years of the terminus a quo. ...If, then, the terminus a quo for the decree in v.25 be reckoned as 457 B.C. (the date of Ezra's return to Jerusalem), then we may compute the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed. Then from 408 we count off the sixty-two heptads also mentioned in v.25 and come out to A.D. 26 (408 is 26 less than 434). But actually we come out to A.D. 27, since a year is gained in our reckoning as we pass directly from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 (without any year zero in between). If Christ was crucified on 14 Abib A.D. 30, as is generally believed ... this would come out to a remarkably exact fulfillment of the terms of v.25. Christ's public ministry, from the time of his baptism in the Jordan till his death and resurrection at Jerusalem, must have taken up about three years. The 483 years from the issuing of the decree of Artaxerxes came to an end in A.D. 27, the year of the `coming' of Messiah as Ruler (nasi'). It was indeed `after the sixty-two `sevens' `-three years after-that `the Anointed One' was `cut off.'" (Archer, G.L., 1985, "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Vol. 7, pp.113-114).

"The KJV, however, rendered this verse [Dn 9:25], `Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.' Using the date of 457 B.C.E. as our starting point, as suggested by some scholars, and putting the two sets of weeks together (7 x 7 + 7 x 62), we would arrive at a total of 483 years, ending in 27 C.E.-the very year that Jesus began his public ministry.[The reason there are only 483 years from 457 B.C.E.. to 27 C.E. (instead of 484 years) is because there is no `zero year.' In other words, we count directly from 1 B.C.E.. to 1 C.E.] What an incredibly accurate prophecy this would be!" (Brown, M.L., 2003, "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections," Vol. 3, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 2006, p.102, 220).

"The one combination which coincides with known history throughout starts with the decree of Artaxerxes in his seventh year, 457 B.C. A period of seven weeks or forty-nine years came to a close about 408 B.C., and the reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah was conducted during this period and characterized this period as a whole. When this reform ceased to be the dominating feature of God's kingdom is unknown, but Nehemiah's successor [Bagoas], who was a Persian and naturally not a maintainer of the exclusiveness of Jehovah's religion, was in office in 411 B.C., before the close of the seventh week." (Davis, J.D., 1924, "A Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth Edition, Fifteenth Printing, 1966, p.163).

"The Seventy Weeks The Captivity, which was then drawing to a closes had lasted 70 years. Daniel is here told by the angel that it would yet be `70 weeks' till the coming of the Messiah (24). The `70 weeks' is generally understood to mean 70 weeks of years, that is as 70 sevens of years, or seven times 70 years, that is 490 years. As if the angel were saying, The Captivity has been 70 years; the period between the Captivity and the Coming of the Messiah will be seven times that long. Seven, and cycles of seven, sometimes have symbolic meanings; yet the actual facts of this prophecy are most amazing, as follows: The date from which the 70 weeks was to be counted was the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (25). There were three decrees issued by Persian kings for this purpose (536 B.C., 457 B.C., 444 B.C., see under Ezra). The principal one of these was 457 B.C. The 70 weeks is subdivided into 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week (25, 27). It is difficult to see the application of the `7 weeks'; but the 69 weeks (including the 7) equal 483 days, that is, on the year-day theory (Ezekiel 4:6), which is the commonly accepted interpretation, 483 years. This 483 years is the period between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the `Anointed One' (25). The decree to rebuild Jerusalem, as noted above, was 457 B.C. Adding 483 years to 457 B.C. brings us to A.D. 26, the very year that Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry. A most remarkable fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, even to the year. Further, within 3 ½ years Jesus was crucified, that is, `in the midst of the one week' `the Anointed One' was `cut off,' `purged away sin and brought in everlasting righteousness' (24, 26, 27). Thus Daniel foretold not only the Time at which the Messiah would appear, but also the Duration of his Public Ministry, and his Atoning Death for Human Sin. Some think that God's chronology was suspended at the death of Christ, to remain so while Israel is scattered, and that the last half of the `one week' belongs to the time of the End." (Halley, H.H., 1965, "Halley's Bible Handbook: An Abbreviated Bible Commentary," [1927], Oliphants: London, Twenty-fourth edition, p.349).

"shabua`. A period of seven, a week, the Feast of Weeks. This term occurs twenty times in the or, always indicating a period of seven. Indeed, the word obviously comes to us from sheba' (q.v.) and could literally be translated always as `seven-period.' In Deut 16:9, shabu'a represents a period of seven days (literally `seven seven-periods you-shall-number-to-you'). The context in verses 9, 10, and 16 demands the time to be in terms of `days.' No serious expositor has ever argued for `years' here. It might be noted that in Deut 16:9 in the spelling of the plural, the central vowel letter-the waw-is omitted (shabu`ot), as it is also at times in the singular (e.g. Gen 29:27, shebua`) where in an unpointed text it would then be spelled identically to seven, sheba', in the feminine. While in Deut 16:9, discussed above, shabu'a represents a period of seven days, in Dan 9:24,25,26,27 it denotes a period of seven years in each of its appearances in these four verses. This is proven by the context wherein Daniel recognizes that the seventy-year period of captivity is almost over. The land had been fallow for seventy years and thus repaid the Lord the seventy sabbatical years owed to him for the prior seventy periods of seven years (Dan 9:2; Jer 25:12; cf. II Chr 36:21!). Just as Daniel is in prayer concerning this matter, the angel Gabriel appears and informs him that Israel's restoration will not be complete until she goes through another seventy periods-of-seven, shabua' (Dan 9:24ff)! Note also the apparent reference in Dan 12:11 to half of Daniel's last seventy (9:27); it is 1290 days, approximately three and a half years. Thus here it means years. shabua` is also used as a technical term in Deut 16:10,16 where it denotes the Feast of Weeks (hag shabu`ot), i.e. the Feast of Seven-Periods." (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1980, Twelfth Printing, 1992, Vol. II, p.899. Emphasis original).

"Despite Cyrus' support and command, the first return in 538, under Shenazar, son of the former King Jehoiakim, was a failure, for the poor Jews who had been left behind, the am ha-arez, resisted it, and in conjunction with Samaritans, Edomites and Arabs, prevented the settlers building walls. A second effort, with the full backing of Cyrus' son Darius, was made in 520 BC, under an official leader Zeurubbabel, whose authority as a descendant of David was reinforced by his appointment as Persian Governor of Judah. ... Work on the Temple began immediately... . In 458 BC it was reinforced by a third wave, led by Ezra, a priest and scribe of great learning and authority, who tried and failed to sort out the legal problems caused by heterodoxy, intermarriage and disputed ownership of land. Finally, in 445 BC, Ezra was joined by a powerful contingent headed by a leading Jew and prominent Persian official called Nehemiah, who was given the governorship of Judah and the authority to build it into an independent political unit within the empire. This fourth wave at last succeeded in stabilizing the settlement, chiefly because Nehemiah, a man of action as well as a diplomat and statesman, rebuilt with commendable speed the walls of Jerusalem and so created a secure enclave from which the work of resettlement could be directed. .... The rebuilt city was smaller than Solomon's, it was poor and to begin with it was sparsely populated. ... The years 400-200 BC are the lost centuries of Jewish history. There were no great events or calamities they chose to record. Perhaps they were happy. The Jews certainly seem to have liked the Persians the best of all their rulers. They never revolted against them; on the contrary, Jewish mercenaries helped the Persians to put down Egyptian rebellion." (Johnson, P., 1987, "A History of the Jews," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, pp.86-87).

"The `seventy `sevens' are usually understood to be `weeks' of years (the word `seven' can also mean `week'; cf. NIV note), but the usual feminine form for `week,' which occurs elsewhere in the OT, is not used here. Moreover, in accordance with the use found elsewhere in this book, what Daniel means by these seventy `heptads' is seventy units of seven years, or `seventy' times `seven' years (i.e., 490 years). These years have been `decreed' by God's predetermined plan for the ages and are now being announced to Daniel in one of the most amazing disclosures into the future to be found in the OT. But note that the `heptads' are for Daniel's people of Israel and for their capital city, Jerusalem." (Kaiser, W.C., Jr., 1995, "The Messiah in the Old Testament," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.202).

"The terminus a quo for the commencement of these sixty nine weeks of years is stated to be from the going forth of the word (or decree) to restore and build Jerusalem (ver 25). This may refer to the divine decree, or one of three historical edicts: (1) decree of King Cyrus in 538 B.C. (Ezra -4); (2) the order of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C. (which apparently involved authority to erect the walls of Jerusalem, cf. Ezra 7.6, 7; 9.9); (3) the order to Nehemiah in 445 B.C. to carry through the rebuilding of the walls (which Ezra had not been able to accomplish). Of these choices, (1) must be ruled out as coming nowhere to the time of Christ's ministry; (3) coming out too late, unless lunar years are used the computation. Only (2) comes out right according to regular solar years, for it yields the result as A.D. 27, or the commencement of Christ's ministry. Ezra and Nehemiah render an account of the rebuilding of Jerusalem in forty-nine years and troublous times. Then follow the sixty-two weeks, after which Messiah was cut off for sin." (Lindsell, H., ed., 1964, "Harper Study Bible," Revised Standard Version, Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Nineteenth printing, 1983, pp.1312-1313).

"The term also corresponds. Unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks [v.25], i. e. the first 483 years of the period, the last 7 being parted off. But 483 years from the beginning of B.C. 457 were completed at the beginning of 27 A.D. which (since the Nativity was 4 years earlier than our era) would coincide with His Baptism, `being about 30 years of age,' when the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him manifested Him to be the Anointed with the Holy Ghost, the Christ. Further still, the whole period of 70 weeks is divided into three successive periods, 7, 62, 1 ... But, in the prophecy of the 70 weeks, the portions also can be traced. The words are; From the going forth of a commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks; street and wall' shall be restored and builded; and in strait of times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off. [vv.25-26] Obviously, unless there had been a meaning in this division, it would have stood, ` shall be threescore and nine weeks,' `not, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.' For every word in this condensed prophecy has its place and meaning, and the division would be unmeaning, unless something were assigned to this first portion. The text does assign it. It says, the street shall be restored and be builded; and that, in troublous times. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah give the explanation. Ezra came to Jerusalem, B.C. 457; he labored in restoring the Jewish polity, within and without, for 13 years before Nehemiah was sent by Artaxerxes, B.C. 444. [Neh 2:1ff] ... We have any how for the period of the two great restorers of the Jewish polity, Ezra and Nehemiah conjointly, a time somewhat exceeding 45 years; so that we know that the restoration was completed in the latter part of the 7th week of years, and it is probable that it was not closed until the end of it. In regard to the strait of times, amid which this restoration was to take place, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are the commentary. Up to the completion of the walls, there was one succession of vexations on the part of the enemies of the Jews." (Pusey, E.B., 1885, "Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford. With Copious Notes." Funk & Wagnalls: New York NY, pp.189-191).

"Most likely it was Ezra the Scribe who issued the word to restore and to build Jerusalem in the spring of 457 B.C. .... This is the terminus a quo of the passage. Counting from that date seven sevens and sixty two sevens of years would elapse before the appearance of Messiah-Prince. Seven sevens of years are equal to 49 years; sixty-two sevens is equal to 434 years. ... Subtracting 483 years from the starting point of 457 B.C. the year A.D. 27 is reached. In the modern system of counting years there is no year zero. Hence the year A.D. 27 must be reduced by one for chronological accuracy. According to Daniel, Messiah-Prince would appear in A.D. 26. It is surely more than a coincidence that the baptism of Jesus occurred in A.D. 26.[Finegan (HBC, pp. 259-69) dates the baptism of Jesus to November, A.D. 26.] At that time John introduced him to the nation as their Messiah, the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world." (Smith, J.E. , 1993, "What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah: An In-depth Study of 73 Key Old Testament Prophesies About the Messiah," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.386).

"Traditional Interpretation. This view is represented by E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, an excellent commentary which has been reprinted in the Barnes Notes series. Pusey starts counting the seventy sevens from 458 B.C., the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra. The first forty-nine years, which include the work of Nehemiah, terminate in 409 B.C. The anointed one is Christ who was baptized in A.D. 26 and immediately thereafter began his Messianic ministry. He was cut off by his death on the cross. The prince who is to come in judgment on Jerusalem is Christ or Titus who acts as an agent for Christ. The covenant to be made firm is Christ's new testament. The Old Testament sacrificial system ended in the midst of the seventieth week when Christ died on the cross (A.D. 30). The seventieth seven ends with the stoning of Stephen, Jewish rejection of the New Testament, and the call of Paul (A.D. 33)." (Smith, 1993, p.390).

"[Dn 9:24]. ... Seventy sevens]-lit., sevens seventy. the word sevens-usually translated weeks-is placed first for the sake of emphasis. It constitutes the great theme of the passage. For the same reason, the numeral here follows the noun, and does not precede it, as is usually the case. The thought of the author may then be paraphrased, `Sevens--and in fact seventy of them are decreed, etc.' The word sevens here occurs in the m.pl. [masculine plural], whereas it generally has a f.pl. [feminine plural] ... What led Dan. to employ the m. [masculine] instead of the f. [feminine] however, is not clear unless it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense. .... It seems obvious that ordinary weeks of 7 days are not intended." (Young, E.J., 1972, "A Commentary on Daniel," [1949], Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, British edition, Reprinted, 1978, pp.195-196).

Re: Fred Hoyle about the 747, the tornado and the junkyard

AN

Thanks for your message. As is my usual policy when I receive a private message on evolution, I will answer it via my blog,

[Above: Boeing 747 assembly at Everett, near Seattle: USA Today]

CreationEvolutionDesign, minus your personal identifying information. Your words are bold to distinguish them from my comments.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 3:42 AM
Subject: RE: origin of life #2- a question

>... My question concerns the famous statement of Sir Fred Hoyle about the 747, the tornado, and the junkyard. I have the page from your site with the exact quote from "The Intelligent Universe".

Here is the relevant part of that quote by Hoyle:

"If you stir up simple nonorganic molecules like water, ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen cyanide with almost any form of intense energy ... some of the molecules reassemble themselves into amino acids ... demonstrated ... by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. The ... building blocks of proteins can therefore be produced by natural means. But this is far from proving that life could have evolved in this way. No one has shown that the correct arrangements of amino acids, like the orderings in enzymes, can be produced by this method. .... A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe." (Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp.18-19).

The first instance that I am aware of Hoyle's use of that metaphor was reported in the science journal Nature in 1981:

"Hoyle said last week that ... the origin of life ... the information content of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 10^{40 000} - representing the specificity with which some 2,000 genes, each of which might be chosen from 10²⁰ nucleotide sequences of the appropriate length .... The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that `a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'. " (Hoyle, F., in "Hoyle on evolution," Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p.105).

The above quote is a bit confusing because it conflates "the origin of life" with "the higher forms of life."

This conflation originates with Hoyle, because his 1 in "10^{40 000}" chance of "2,000 genes" of "10²⁰ nucleotide ... length" arising spontaneously refers to the "about two thousand" "enzymes ... across the whole of biology" and "the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial" in an "organic soup":

"... enzymes are a large class of molecule that for the most part runs across the whole of biology, without there being any hint of their mode of origin. ... Enzymes are polypeptides (proteins) .... their function. ... is determined by the particular sequence of amino acids in the polypeptide structure. .. There are ... twenty distinct amino acids ... and these simply must be in the correct position in the polypeptide structure. ... The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone can hardly be greater than one part in 10¹⁵, and the chance of obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than one part in 10⁵. .... The two small probabilities ...have to be multiplied, when they yield a chance of one part in 10²⁰ of obtaining the required enzyme in a functioning form. .... there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10²⁰)²⁰⁰⁰ = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability .... this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." (Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space," 1981, pp.19-21).

But Hoyle is right in requiring an explanation of where all the enzymes or proteins that exist "across the whole of biology" came from, given that the probability of even one small enzyme/protein of 100 amino acids arranged in a necessarily specific sequence would be 20¹⁰⁰ = ~10¹³⁰, when there are ~10⁸⁰ protons in the entire universe:

"... for a relatively small protein of 100 amino acids, selection of this correct sequence had to be made by chance from 10¹³⁰ alternative choices. ... The probability of such a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space which we are considering, it is effectively zero." (Brooks, "Origins of Life," 1985, pp.84-85).

".. why the random self-assembly of proteins seems a non-starter. .... Proteins ... are very specific amino acid sequences ... the number of alternative permutations ... of amino acids is super-astronomical. A small protein may typically contain 100 amino acids of 20 varieties. There are about 10¹³⁰ ... different arrangements of the amino acids in a molecule of this length. .... Getting a useful configuration of amino acids from the squillions of useless combinations ... [would be] like trying to track down a site on the internet without a search engine." (Davies, "The Fifth Miracle," 1998, p.61).

"... the entire mass of the universe, expressed as a multiple of the mass of the hydrogen atom, amounts to about 10⁸⁰ units. ... Even the smallest catalytically active protein molecules of the living cell consist of at least a hundred amino acid residues, and they thus already possess more than 10¹³⁰ sequence alternatives ... ... a primitive organism has about the same chance of arising by pure chance ... as a general textbook of biochemistry has of arising by the random mixing of a sufficient number of letters." (Kuppers, "Information and the Origin of Life," 1986, p.60).

But minimal cell experiments have shown that the simplest (albeit parasitic) living organism requires "between 250 and 350 different proteins to carry out its most basic operations" but "this bare form of life cannot survive long without a source of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids":

"Theoretical and experimental studies designed to discover the bare minimum number of gene products [proteins and RNAs] necessary for life all show significant agreement. Life seems to require between 250 and 350 different proteins to carry out its most basic operations. That this bare form of life cannot survive long without a source of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids is worth noting." (Rana, F.R. & Ross, H.N., "Origins of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off," Navpress: Colorado Springs CO, 2004, pp.162-163).

Between "250 and 350 different proteins" is bad enough for a spontaneous naturalistic origin of life, but the "microbial database" shows that the "smallest known genomes and capable of living independently in the environment ... requires a minimum genome size of about 1,500 to 1,900 gene products":

"Genome Size ... The data indicate that the microbes possessing the smallest known genomes ... seems to suggest that, to exist independently, life requires a minimum genome size of about 1,500 to 1,900 gene products. ... all microbial genomes that fall below 1,500 belong to parasites." (Rana & Ross, Ibid, 2004, pp.161-162).

The late Prof. Colin Patterson acknowledged that:

"the ... free-living bacterium, Methanococcus, which has 1.7 million base-pairs and about 1700 genes, [is] perhaps close to the minimum necessary for independent life." (Patterson, "Evolution,"1999, p.23).

>In Dawkins book (God Delusion) on Pg. 117, he mentions this statement of Hoyle's and implies that it was referring to natural selection and evolution.

Here is the relevant part of that quote by Richard Dawkins:

"Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist and cosmologist, but his Boeing 747 misunderstanding, and other mistakes in biology ... suggest that he needed to have his consciousness raised by some good exposure to the world of natural selection. At an intellectual level, I suppose he understood natural selection. But perhaps you need to be steeped in natural selection, immersed in it, swim about in it, before you can truly appreciate its power." (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, 2006, p.117).

This is Dawkins at his deceptive best (or worst). Dawkins had not shown that it was Hoyle's "Boeing 747 misunderstanding," nor that it had anything to do with "natural selection" (see below). And Dawkins admits of Hoyle that "At an intellectual level ... he understood natural selection" but one "need[s] to be steeped in natural selection" to "truly appreciate its power." Hoyle would no doubt respond that Dawkins has so "steeped" himself "in natural selection" that he cannot "truly appreciate" natural selection's lack of "power"!

In fact Hoyle, being a mathematician, completely re-worked out from scratch the fundamental mathematics of Neo-Darwinism and found that "the Darwinian theory ... does not work at broader taxonomic levels; it cannot explain the major steps in evolution":

"As it became clear that the Darwinian theory could not be broadly correct, a question still remained, however, for I found it difficult to accept that the theory could be wholly incorrect. ... The issue was a mathematical one ... .... Eventually therefore, I decided to tackle this mathematics myself working de novo ... Although my results were all arrived at independently, some-perhaps most-have been obtained before. Their arrangement, however, is I believe original. ... And the outcome of this essay? Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. ... the theory works at the level of varieties and species ... the theory does not work at broader taxonomic levels; it cannot explain the major steps in evolution." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.5-6, 10).

>It seemed clear to me that Hoyle was referring to origin of the first living organism,

Yes. Earlier in his book Dawkins cites "Hoyle's ... image of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard" as referring to "the probability of life originating on Earth":

"The name comes from Fred Hoyle's amusing image of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard. ... Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747. ... This, in a nutshell, is the creationist's favourite argument - an argument that could be made only by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection ..." (Dawkins, 2006, Ibid, p.113).

Note Dawkins' self-contradiction, that Hoyle, "doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection," yet four pages later Hoyle, "At an intellectual level ... understood natural selection"!

>and Dawkins is clearly misleading his readers to blunt what he knows is a devastating attack on a "naturalistic" origin of life.

Agreed. But Dawkins forgets that as he once admitted, that in:

"... the problem of how life originated on Earth. .... we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself ... cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection!." (Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, pp.139-141)

Dawkins then answered his own question:

"... how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth? ... when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves ...such an extravagant theory ... provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one." (Dawkins, Ibid, 1986, pp.143,146).

But unfortunately for Dawkins, "1 in 100 billion billion" is only 1 in 10²⁰ (i.e. 10²*10⁹*10⁹ = 10²⁺⁹⁺⁹). That is not enough for the chance assembly of a specific chain of 15 (20¹⁵ = ~10^19.5) amino acids, i.e. not even enough for one protein!

>Dawkins by his own admission understands that all origin of life theories are nothing more than speculation. Do you think I understood it correctly?

I cannot see where in the quote you refer to from page 117 of his "The God Delusion," that Dawkins admits that "all origin of life theories are nothing more than speculation." However, elsewhere in his writings Dawkins effectively does admit that:

"The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened." (Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene," 1989, pp.14-15).

"So, can we come up with any speculations about relatively probable ways in which cumulative selection might have got its start? .... We can hope for nothing more than speculation when the events we are talking about took place four billion years ago ... in a world that must have been radically different from that which we know today." (Dawkins, Ibid, 1986, p.147).

"But how did the whole process start? .... Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup .... Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow ... a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying...." (Dawkins, "Climbing Mount Improbable," 1996, p.259).

"Life may be common in the universe, but we are also at liberty to speculate that it is exceedingly rare. It therefore follows that the kind of event we are seeking, when we speculate about the origin of life, could be a very very improbable event ... my intuition is still that the arising of life on a planet is not all that unexpected an event" (Dawkins, Ibid, 1996, p.261).

>I did not see this particular quote on your site, but it's cute so I'm sending it to you. In an article found on American Scientist Online ["The Beginnings of Life on Earth"] Nobel Prize winner Dr. Christian DeDuve writes "how this momentous event [origin of life] happened is still highly conjectural, though no longer purely speculative.."
>
>I found the statement to be slightly confusing so I looked up "conjecture" on WordNet, an online dictionary and found the following: noun: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculation (syn-speculation) verb: to believe on uncertain or tentative grounds (syn.- speculate)
>
>I guess what he really meant was that it's highly speculative, though no longer purely conjectural.

Thanks for the link. My take is that Christian de Duve, like Dawkins, is another dogmatic materialist extremist. So what is not "speculative" to him is that the origin of life must have been materialistic and naturalistic. What is "conjectural" to De Duve is which particular "spontaneously by natural processes" way it happened. This is evident in de Duve's dogmatic requirement that "life arose spontaneously by natural processes" is "a necessary assumption "and "Any hint of teleology must be avoided":

"... life arose spontaneously by natural processes-a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science .... An important rule in this exercise is to reconstruct the earliest events in life's history without assuming they proceeded with the benefit of foresight. .... Each must stand on its own and cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come. Any hint of teleology must be avoided." (de Duve, "The Beginnings of Life on Earth," 1995, p.428)

In other words, de Duve and his materialistic-naturalistic ilk would rather believe a false explanation of the origin of life that avoided "teleology," than a true explanation that "proceeded with the benefit of foresight" by God!

[...]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"This generalized proposition-that processes of chance and natural law led to living organisms emerging on Earth from the relatively simple organic molecules in 'primordial soups'-is valid only if there is a finite probability of the correct assembly of molecules occurring within the time-scale envisaged. Here there is another great problem. In the above example for a relatively small protein of 100 amino acids, selection of this correct sequence had to be made by chance from 10¹³⁰ alternative choices. The operation of pure chance would mean that within a maximum of about 500 million years (or somewhat less), the organic molecules in the 'primordial soup' might have to undergo 10¹³⁰ trial assemblies to hit on the correct sequence. The probability of such a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space which we are considering, it is effectively zero." (Brooks, J., "Origins of Life," Lion: Tring, Hertfordshire UK, 1985, pp.84-85).

"There is a more fundamental reason why the random self-assembly of proteins seems a non-starter. This has to do not with the formation of the chemical bonds as such, but with the particular order in which the amino acids link together. Proteins do not consist of any old peptide chains; they are very specific amino acid sequences that have specialized chemical properties needed for life. However, the number of alternative permutations available to a mixture of amino acids is super-astronomical. A small protein may typically contain 100 amino acids of 20 varieties. There are about 10¹³⁰ (which is I followed by a 130 zeros) different arrangements of the amino acids in a molecule of this length. Hitting the right one by accident would be no mean feat. Getting a useful configuration of amino acids from the squillions of useless combinations on offer can be thought of as a mammoth information retrieval problem, like trying to track down a site on the internet without a search engine." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life," Penguin: Ringwood Vic, Australia, 1998, p.61).

"The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened. ... The simplified account I shall give is probably not too far from the truth. We do not know what chemical raw materials were abundant on earth before the coming of life, but among the plausible possibilities are water, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia ... Chemists have tried to imitate the chemical conditions of the young earth. They have put these simple substances in a flask and supplied a source of energy such as ultraviolet light or electric sparks-artificial simulation of primordial lightning. After a few weeks of this, something interesting is usually found inside the flask: a weak brown soup containing a large number of molecules more complex than the ones originally put in. In particular, amino acids have been found-the building blocks of proteins ... More recently, laboratory simulations of the chemical conditions of earth before the coming of life have yielded organic substances called purines and pyrimidines. These are building blocks of the genetic molecule, DNA itself. Processes analogous to these must have given rise to the 'primeval soup' which biologists and chemists believe constituted the seas some three to four thousand million years ago. The organic substances became locally concentrated, perhaps in drying scum round the shores, or in tiny suspended droplets. Under the further influence of energy such as ultraviolet light from the sun, they combined into larger molecules. ... At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It ... had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself." (Dawkins, R., "The Selfish Gene," [1976], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, New edition, 1989, pp.14-15. Emphasis original).

"This example is the problem of how life originated on Earth. .... Cumulative selection is the key to all our modern explanations of life. ... but it had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself. ... And that vital first step was a difficult one because, at its heart, there lies what seems to be a paradox. The replication processes that we know seem to need complicated machinery to work. ... . The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem. ... So, cumulative selection can manufacture complexity while single-step selection cannot. But cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection!." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, pp.139-141).

"Our question was, how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth? ... . Therefore we have at our disposal, if we want to use it, odds of 1 in 100 billion billion as an upper limit (or 1 in however many available planets we think there are) to spend in our theory of the origin of life. This is the maximum amount of luck we are allowed to postulate in our theory. Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.143,146) .

"If the theory that DNA and its copying machinery arose spontaneously is so improbable that it obliges us to assume that life is very rare in the universe, and may even be unique to Earth, our first resort is to try to find a more probable theory. So, can we come up with any speculations about relatively probable ways in which cumulative selection might have got its start? The word 'speculate' has pejorative overtones, but these are quite uncalled for here. We can hope for nothing more than speculation when the events we are talking about took place four billion years ago and took place, moreover, in a world that must have been radically different from that which we know today." (Dawkins, 1986, p.147).

"But how did the whole process start? To answer that, we have to go back a very long time, more than 3,000 million years, probably as long as 4,000 million years. In those days the world was very different. There was no life, no biology, only physics and chemistry, and the details of the Earth's chemistry were very different. Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea. Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying - a replicator." (Dawkins, R., "Climbing Mount Improbable," Penguin: London, 1996, p.259).

"Life may be common in the universe, but we are also at liberty to speculate that it is exceedingly rare. It therefore follows that the kind of event we are seeking, when we speculate about the origin of life, could be a very very improbable event: not the kind of event that we can expect to duplicate in the laboratory and not the kind of event that a chemist will deem `plausible'. This is an interesting paradox ...We could be actively seeking a theory with the specific property that, when we find it, we shall judge it highly implausible! Looking at the matter in one way, we might even be positively worried if a chemist manages to support a theory of the origin of life which, using ordinary standards of probability, we judge to be plausible. On the other hand life seems to have arisen during the first half billion of the Earth's 4.5 billion years; we've been here for eight parts in nine of the Earth's age and my intuition is still that the arising of life on a planet is not all that unexpected an event." (Dawkins, 1996, p.261).

"The name comes from Fred Hoyle's amusing image of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard. I am not sure whether Hoyle ever wrote it down himself, but it was attributed to him by his close colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe and is presumably authentic. Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747. Others have borrowed the metaphor to refer to the later evolution of complex living bodies, where it has a spurious plausibility. The odds against assembling a fully functioning horse, beetle or ostrich by randomly shuffling its parts are up there in 747 territory. This, in a nutshell, is the creationist's favourite argument - an argument that could be made only by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection: somebody who thinks natural selection is a theory of chance whereas - in the relevant sense of chance - it is the opposite." (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, 2006, p.113).

"It is surprising how necessary such consciousness-raising is, even in the minds of excellent scientists in fields other than biology. Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist and cosmologist, but his Boeing 747 misunderstanding, and other mistakes in biology such as his attempt to dismiss the fossil Archaeopteryx as a hoax, suggest that he needed to have his consciousness raised by some good exposure to the world of natural selection. At an intellectual level, I suppose he understood natural selection. But perhaps you need to be steeped in natural selection, immersed in it, swim about in it, before you can truly appreciate its power." (Dawkins, 2006, p.117).

"It is now generally agreed that if life arose spontaneously by natural processes-a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science-it must have arisen fairly quickly, more in a matter of millennia or centuries, perhaps even less, than in millions of years. Even if life came from elsewhere, we would still have to account for its first development. Thus we might as well assume that life started on earth. How this momentous event happened is still highly conjectural, though no longer purely speculative. The clues come from the earth, from outer space, from laboratory experiments, and, especially, from life itself. The history of life on earth is written in the cells and molecules of existing organisms. Thanks to the advances of cell biology, biochemistry and molecular biology, scientists are becoming increasingly adept at reading the text. An important rule in this exercise is to reconstruct the earliest events in life's history without assuming they proceeded with the benefit of foresight. Every step must be accounted for in terms of antecedent and concomitant events. Each must stand on its own and cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come. Any hint of teleology must be avoided." (de Duve, C., "The Beginnings of Life on Earth," American Scientist, Vol. 83, September-October 1995, pp.428-437).

"Hoyle said last week that, although content in the mid-1960s to give the supposed connection between the microwave background radiation and the big bang a `good run for its money' he had now lost patience with this approach. Two of his reasons involve the origin of life-the calculated time since the origin of the Universe of 10,000 million years or so is not enough to account for the evolution of living forms, while adiabatic expansion of the Universe would have been inimical to the evolution of highly ordered forms. But Hoyle also said that new evidence in support of the big-bang hypothesis was emerging only slowly. Yet `when people are on the right track, new facts emerge quickly', Hoyle said he would change his view if it turned out that neutrinos have a mass of between 20 and 30 electron volts. The essence of his argument last week was that the information content of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 10^{40 000} - representing the specificity with which some 2,000 genes, each of which might be chosen from 10²⁰ nucleotide sequences of the appropriate length, might be defined. Evolutionary processes would, Hoyle said, require several Hubble times to yield such a result. The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that `a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'. Hoyle acknowledged that steady-state theories of cosmologies, of which he was one of the chief exponents in the 1950s, are not now tenable because of the evidence for evolutionary galactic and stellar processes. But the big-bang view is similarly not tenable because of the way in which it implies the degradation of information. Of adherents of biological evolution, Hoyle said he was at a loss to understand `biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious'. (Hoyle, F., in "Hoyle on evolution," Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p.105).

"The popular idea that life could have arisen spontaneously on Earth dates back to experiments that caught the public imagination earlier this century. If you stir up simple nonorganic molecules like water, ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen cyanide with almost any form of intense energy, ultraviolet light for instance, some of the molecules reassemble themselves into amino acids, a result demonstrated about thirty years ago by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. The amino acids, the individual building blocks of proteins can therefore be produced by natural means. But this is far from proving that life could have evolved in this way. No one has shown that the correct arrangements of amino acids, like the orderings in enzymes, can be produced by this method. No evidence for this huge jump in complexity has ever been found, nor in my opinion will it be. Nevertheless, many scientists have made this leap-from the formation of individual amino acids to the random formation of whole chains of amino acids like enzymes-in spite of the obviously huge odds against such an event having ever taken place on the Earth, and this quite unjustified conclusion has stuck. In a popular lecture I once unflatteringly described the thinking of these scientists as a `junkyard mentality'. As this reference became widely and not quite accurately quoted I will repeat it here. A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe." (Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp.18-19).

"In particular, the enzymes are a large class of molecule that for the most part runs across the whole of biology, without there being any hint of their mode of origin. There are about two thousand of them. Enzymes are polypeptides (proteins) that specialize in speeding up biological reactions, which they do with far greater efficiency than man-made catalysts. They act both to build up and to break down a wide range of biosubstances. The surface shapes of enzymes are critical to their function. ... Surface shape is determined by the particular sequence of amino acids in the polypeptide structure. One can think of getting the surface shape right in two stages of approximation. There are some ten to twenty distinct amino acids which determine the basic backbone of the enzyme and these simply must be in the correct position in the polypeptide structure. The rest of the amino acids, usually numbering a hundred or more, then control the finer details of the surface shape. There are also the active sites that eventually promote the biochemical reactions in question, and these too must be correct in their atomic forms and locations. Consider now the chance that in a random ordering of the twenty different amino acids which make up the polypeptides it just happens that the different kinds fall into the order appropriate to a particular enzyme. The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone can hardly be greater than one part in 10¹⁵, and the chance of obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than one part in 10⁵. Because the fine details of the surface shape can be varied we shall take the conservative line of not 'piling on the agony' by including any further small probability for the rest of the enzyme. The two small probabilities we are including are quite enough. They have to be multiplied, when they yield a chance of one part in 10²⁰ of obtaining the required enzyme in a functioning form. By itself, this small probability could be faced, because one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the Earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10²⁰)²⁰⁰⁰ = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." (Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., "Evolution from Space," Paladin: London, 1981, Reprinted, 1983, pp.19-21).

"In this way, amino acids can become linked together into long chains, named polypeptides or proteins. A chain of 100 links would be considered rather short in biology. Yet with 20 possible choices for R at each link, the total number of chains with 100 links is 20¹⁰⁰, or 10¹³⁰, to the nearest order of magnitude. The longest protein chains run to about 2000 links, for which the number of possibilities is 20²⁰⁰⁰, or about l0²⁶⁰⁰, truly a big number. Journalists like to use the phrase `astronomical numbers' for what they considered to be immensely large, but these numbers are 'super-astronomical' in their largeness. Big numbers in astronomy usually have about 40 zeros, as have those in physics. Even the ratio of the largest distances in astronomy to the smallest lengths in physics has only about 60 zeros." (Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., "Our Place in the Cosmos: The Unfinished Revolution," Phoenix: London, 1993, Reprinted, 1996, pp.151-152).

"Even in the simple case of a bacterium, the genome consists of some 4 x 10⁶ nucleotides, and the number of combinatorially possible sequences is 4⁴ million = 10^2.4 million The expectation probability for the nucleotide sequence of a bacterium is thus so slight that not even the entire space of the universe would be enough to make the random synthesis of a bacterial genome probable. For example, the entire mass of the universe, expressed as a multiple of the mass of the hydrogen atom, amounts to about 10⁸⁰ units. Even if all the matter in space consisted of DNA molecules of the structural complexity of the bacterial genome, with random sequences, then the chances of finding among them a bacterial genome or something resembling one would still be completely negligible. It can naturally be objected that our statistical arguments are based upon the assumption of an entity with the complexity of a bacterial genome, while the historical process of the origin of life possibly took place by way of simpler forms of life. However, an appropriate analysis, based on probability theory, shows that not even an optimised enzyme molecule can arise in a random synthesis. Even the smallest catalytically active protein molecules of the living cell consist of at least a hundred amino acid residues, and they thus already possess more than 10¹³⁰ sequence alternatives ... These striking numerical examples allow us to conclude with Monod that the design of a primitive organism has about the same chance of arising by pure chance, in a molecular roulette, as a general textbook of biochemistry has of arising by the random mixing of a sufficient number of letters." (Kuppers, B-O., "Information and the Origin of Life," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1986, Reprinted, 1990, p.60).

"In July 1995 the entire DNA sequence of the bacterium Haemophilus influenzae, 1.8 million base-pairs, was elucidated, followed three months later by the sequence of a second parasitic bacterium. In April 1996 the complete sequence (12 million base-pairs) of yeast was announced, and in August 1996 the first complete sequence of a free-living bacterium, Methanococcus, which has 1.7 million base-pairs and about 1700 genes, perhaps close to the minimum necessary for independent life." (Patterson, C., "Evolution," [1978], Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, Second edition, 1999, p.23).

"Genome Size One way to explore the minimum complexity of independent life is to survey the microbial database for the smallest genome. ... The data indicate that the microbes possessing the smallest known genomes and capable of living independently in the environment are extremophilic archaea and eubacteria. ... These organisms also happen to represent what many scientists consider to be the oldest life on Earth. This crude estimate seems to suggest that, to exist independently, life requires a minimum genome size of about 1,500 to 1,900 gene products. (A gene product refers to proteins and functional RNAs, such as ribosomal and transfer RNA.) ... ... So far, as scientists have continued their sequencing efforts, all microbial genomes that fall below 1,500 belong to parasites. Organisms capable of permanent independent existence require more gene products. A minimum genome size (for independent life) of 1,500 to 1,900 gene products comports with what the geochemical and fossil evidence ... reveals about the complexity of Earth's first life. Earliest life forms displayed metabolic complexity that included:

• photosynthetic and chemoautotrophic processes
• protein synthesis
• the capacity to produce amino acids, nucleotides, fatty acids, and sugars
• the machinery to reproduce

Some 1,500 different gene products would seem the bare minimum to sustain this level of metabolic activity. For instance, the Methanococcus jannaschii genome (the first to be sequenced for the archaea domain) possesses about 1,738 gene products. This organism contains the enzymatic machinery for energy metabolism and for the biosynthesis and processing of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids. In addition, the M. jannaschii genome can encode for repair systems, DNA replication, and the cell division apparatus. The genes for protein synthesis and secretion and the genes that specify the construction and activity of the cell membrane and envelope also belong as part of this organism's genome." (Rana, F.R. & Ross, H.N., "Origins of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off," Navpress: Colorado Springs CO, 2004, pp.161-162).

Theory goes to water as fish finger found

The following article appeared the other day in Australia's national newspaper. My comments are bold.

Theory goes to water as fish finger found, The Australian, September 23, 2008. PARIS: Scientists have traced the origin of

[Above (click to enlarge): Reconstruction of Panderichthys: Wikipedia]

fingers and toes to fish-like creatures that roamed the seas 380 million years ago, a new study has found. Panderichthys was not "fish-like." It was a fish!

The findings, published yesterday in the science journal Nature, upend the prevailing theory on the evolution of digits. It had long been assumed that the first creatures to develop primitive fingers were tetrapods, air-breathing animals that crawled from sea to land about 10 to 20 million years later. So fingers arose under water, 10-20 million years (or more) before they were needed on land.

The need to adapt to swampy marshlands and terra firma, so the theory went, is what drove the gradual shift through natural selection from fish fins suitable only for swimming to weight-bearing limbs with articulated joints. This is based on the original Darwinian `just-so' story:

"Origin of tetrapods ... The Devonian, during which land adaptations originated, was seemingly a time of seasonal droughts when life in fresh waters must have been difficult. ... if the water dried up altogether, the amphibian had the better of it. The fish, incapable of land locomotion, must stay in the mud and, if the water did not soon return, must die. But the amphibian, with his short and clumsy but effective limbs, could crawl out of the pool and walk overland ... and reach the next pool where water still remained. Once this process had begun, it is easy to see how a land fauna might eventually have been built up." (Romer, A.S., 1945, "Vertebrate Paleontology," pp.140-141. My emphasis).

Which shows that this major transition had little, if anything to do with the Darwinian natural selection of random micromutations.

But the study reveals rudimentary fingers were already present inside the fins

[Right (click to enlarge): Computerized 3D reconstruction of the fin bones of Panderichthys, showing precursors of fingers: FOX News]

of the shallow-water metre-long Panderichthys, a transitional species that was more fish than tetrapod. Note that these "rudimentary fingers," complete with precursors of all the fore- and hind-leg bones:

"Panderichthys ... the internal, endochondral bones of the fin are closely comparable to those of terrestrial vertebrates. There is a single proximal humerus and more distal ulna and radius in the forelimb, and the femur, tibia and fibula in the hind limb. They are succeeded distally by bones that are homologous with proximal elements of the wrist (intermedium, ulnare, and centralia) and ankle (fibulare, intermedium, and possibly distal tarsals) of land vertebrates..." (Carroll, 1997, "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution," pp.230-232. My emphasis).

were "present inside the fins" of this "species that was more fish than tetrapod" and therefore "they could not have functioned in the manner of these joints in terrestrial vertebrates":

"... but they could not have functioned in the manner of these joints in terrestrial vertebrates because they are extensively overlapped by the radius and the tibia. The entire endochondral skeleton is within a functionally continuous fin structure" (Carroll, 1997, Ibid, pp.230-232. My emphasis).

That is, they could not be `seen' by the environment and so were `invisible' to natural selection. So natural selection cannot, even in principle, explain these major features of the fish-tetrapod transition.

"What we have shown is that the hand and the foot emerge from pre-existing bits of the fin skeleton that were just reshaped, rather than being entirely new bits that were bolted onto the existing fin skeleton," said co-author Per Ahlberg, a researcher at Uppsala University in Sweden. Again, note that "the hand and foot" of all subsequent land vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds) "were already present inside the fins of" a "fish"!

The discovery did not come from a new archeological find but from a re-examination of the existing fossils, he said. Previous research, it turns out, simply overlooked what was there. "The problem is that all good specimens of Panderichthys come from one location" -- a brick quarry in Latvia -- "where the clay is almost exactly the same colour as the bones," Dr Ahlberg said. "If you are interested in tiny, fragile bones at the outer end of the fin skeleton, it's nearly impossible to see what is going on." Clearly, these "tiny, fragile" finger and toe "bones at the outer end of the fin skeleton," conferred no selective advantage to:

"Panderichthys ... quite a large fish, with ... a total body length of over a meter" (Clack, 2002, "Gaining Ground," p.64. My emphasis).

So Dr Ahlberg and two colleagues ran a specimen, still embedded in clay, through a CT scanner at a hospital. The image shows stubby bones at the end of the fin skeleton clearly arrayed like four fingers, called distal radials. There are no joints, and the bones are quite short, but there could be no doubt as to what they were. That there were "no joints" in these "fingers" shows that they could not function as fingers, nor would they be rigid. Therefore they could have no selective advantage for Panderichthys but would be a selective advantage to its descendants millions of years in the future which had functional fingers with joints. But in that case it would be a "part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species" and so "would annihilate" Darwin's "theory" (Darwin, 1872, "Origin of Species," p.162)!

Primitive Fingers Found in Prehistoric Fish, FOX News, September 23, 2008, Jeanna Bryner. An ancient fish sported something like fingers that were the precursors to our own digits, according to an analysis of a new fossil skeleton. Since I accept Universal Common Ancestry (but not Evolution), I agree that these fish "fingers ... were the precursors to our own digits." And also that:

"... all tetrapods [and therefore all land vertebrates-amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals] had a single common ancestor" (Clack, 2002, Ibid, p.66. My emphasis).

And therefore if that one fish "single common ancestor" (out of uncountable trillions of fish) had not by one, or a series of, `lucky' mutations which created precursors of: 1) both forelimbs and hindlimbs, complete with "humerus ... ulna and radius" and "femur, tibia and fibula," as well as "wrist (intermedium, ulnare, and centralia) and ankle (fibulare, intermedium, and ... tarsals)" and "our own digits"; and 2) "pectoral and pelvic girdles" attached to the spine for those limbs to articulate to, neither we, nor any land vertebrate, would be here. But according to my Progressive Mediate Creation general theory, God supernaturally intervened in the genome of that "single common ancestor" to create the:

"blueprint of terrestrial limb structure [in] the genome... of the ["single common ancestor"] osteolepiform fish" (Wilcox, 1990, "Created in Eternity, Unfolded in Time," pp.6:23-24).

"It's really the last piece of evidence to say fingers are not new. They were really present in fish," said lead researcher Catherine Boisvert, an evolutionary biologist at Uppsala University in Sweden. The fossilized skeleton belonged to Panderichthys, a predatory fish that spanned up to 4 feet (130 cm) and likely dwelled in shallow waters where it inched along the muddy bottom about 385 million years ago. The problem for Darwinian `blind watchmaker' evolution by the natural selection of random mutations is to explain:

"How can the world of an aquatic predator quickly select, collect and individuate the information for a highly coherent adaptive blueprint of terrestrial limb structure?" (Wilcox, Ibid, pp.6:23-24. My emphasis)

by inching "along the muddy bottom" of "shallow waters".

While the fossil was discovered in the 1990s by chance in a brick quarry in Latvia in northern Europe, scientists only recently analyzed the fins with computed tomography (CT) and found that the right paddle is tipped with four bony extensions. If you were to turn back the clocks to the Devonian period when Panderichthys lived and spied the fish, you would not have noticed its "fingers," Boisvert explained. Neither would natural selection "have noticed its `fingers'" being that tiny in proportion to Panderichthys' "4 feet (130 cm)" body.

The fan-like array of fingers, however, would have made Panderichthys' paddles broader at the ends. The broad fins would have made for stronger supports for the fish to lean on rather than for all-out swimming. This sounds like yet another Darwinian `just-so' story. But it is gross overkill for "a predatory fish that ... dwelled in shallow waters where it inched along the muddy bottom" to develop "inside" two pairs of fish fins all the fore- and hind-limb bones of "terrestrial vertebrates".

"It was probably using its front fins as supports to be able to look up, kind of doing push-ups at the bottom of the river looking outside with its eyes," Boisvert said, adding that the fish's eyes were on the top of its skull and thus probably good for looking above the mud for fish food. Though Panderichthys was not made for landlubbing, if the need to hop from the water arose, the fish had the means. "So if it was stuck in a pool and it was drying out, [the fish] would have been able to get itself out to the next water body," Boisvert told LiveScience. "It's doing push-ups on land with its big fins and then its pelvic fins (hind fins) are used for an anchor in the mud." That the proto- fore- and hind-limb bones of future terrestrial vertebrates, after they had appeared, may have had some use for Panderichthys (and originally "the single common ancestor") does not thereby explain why they appeared. To just assume that would commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Basically, Panderichthys would have dragged its body along land. "It wouldn't have been pretty," she added. The way that Boisvert puts this indicates she has no evidence that Panderichthys (or "the single common ancestor") ever "dragged its body along land." The fossil finding, detailed in the Sept. 21 issue of the journal Nature, fills in a gap in the evolution of tetrapods, or four-legged animals. About 380 million years ago, our fishy ancestors crept onto land. And here we have a time problem, the time-frame of the fish-tetrapod transition was only 5-15 million years (my emphasis below):

"Panderichthys and Elpistostege flourished in the early Frasnian and are some of the nearest relatives of tetrapods. But tetrapods appear only about 5 to 10 million years later in the late Frasnian, by which time they were widely distributed and had evolved into several groups ... This suggests that the transition from fish to tetrapod occurred rapidly within this restricted time span." (Clack, Ibid, 2002, p.96).

"The transition from fish to crawling four-legged tetrapod occurred ... about 360 million years ago during a relatively short geological interval-no more than probably 15 or 20 million years ..." (Strickberger, 2000, "Evolution," p.410).

"At least 377 million years ago a lineage of lobefins arose that was more tetrapodlike than Eusthenopteron. One of these was an animal called Panderichthys... In 10 or 15 million years, however, relatives of Panderichthys reworked their bodies into tetrapod form." (Zimmer, 1998, "At the Waters Edge," pp.104-105).

Which is a chronospecies problem, i.e. each change had to be "locked up":

"morphological change may accumulate anywhere along the geological trajectory of a species. But unless that change be `locked up' by ... speciation ... it cannot persist ... and must be washed out ... among varying populations of a species. Thus, species ... provide the only mechanism for protecting change" (Gould & Eldredge, 1993, "Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age," pp.226-227)

in a sequence of separate species, "align[ed], end-to-end" i.e. a "chronospecies":

"If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end ..... This is clearly preposterous. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one ... form to a slightly different one..." (Stanley, 1981, "The New Evolutionary Timetable," pp.93-94. My emphasis).

But as with mammals, "A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one ... form to a slightly different one."

Fossil evidence has continued to refine scientists' understanding of this transition, though they still have many questions regarding the fin-to-limb transition and development of other locomotion features. For instance, one such transitional fish called Tiktaalik roseae lived about 375 million years ago and showed signs of both water living and land trekking. However, Boisvert said, even though Tiktaalik is closer evolutionarily to tetrapods, its specimens lack the distinct finger precursors seen on Panderichthys. Therefore these "distinct finger precursors seen on Panderichthys" cannot be explained by natural selection for locomotion on land, including land underwater.

I agree with former atheist Antony Flew that:

"The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of ... life ... is an infinitely intelligent Mind" (Flew, 2007, "There Is a God," p.123ff).

But I see no reason why such an "infinitely intelligent Mind" (who I assume is the God of the Bible), would stop at the origin of life and not continue to supernaturally intervene at other strategic points in life's history, including the fish-to-tetrapod transition.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"Neither the fossil record nor study of development in modern genera yet provides a complete picture of how the paired limbs in tetrapods evolved ... The closest comparison between the paired fins of obligatorily aquatic fish and animals that were at least facultatively terrestrial is provided by the osteolepiform sarcopterygians Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys and the stem tetrapods Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. ... Superficially, the paired fins of the fish appear typical of strictly aquatic vertebrates. They are small relative to the body; they narrow at the base that articulated with the pectoral and pelvic girdles, but broaden distally to form an effective surface for locomotion or directional control in the water. ... In contrast, the internal, endochondral bones of the fin are closely comparable to those of terrestrial vertebrates. There is a single proximal humerus and more distal ulna and radius in the forelimb, and the femur, tibia and fibula in the hind limb. They are succeeded distally by bones that are homologous with proximal elements of the wrist (intermedium, ulnare, and centralia) and ankle (fibulare, intermedium, and possibly distal tarsals) of land vertebrates, but they could not have functioned in the manner of these joints in terrestrial vertebrates because they are extensively overlapped by the radius and the tibia. The entire endochondral skeleton is within a functionally continuous fin structure, as seen from its scaly covering. There is no trace of endochondral skeletal elements comparable with the distal carpals or digits of terrestrial vertebrates. ... In contrast with the clear homology of the more proximal limb bones in osteolepiform fish and early tetrapods, no obvious homologues of the digits is evident in any sarcopterygian. These bones appear de novo in the Upper Devonian tetrapods. How can this be explained?" (Carroll, R.L., 1997, "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, pp.230-232).

"Panderichthys was quite a large fish, with a skull about 300 mm long, and a total body length of over a meter ... . Its body and skull were flattened and the snout rather pointed. The eyes were placed quite close together on the top of its head and were set beneath ridges, giving the impression of eyebrows and creating a subjectively tetrapodlike appearance. Other characters of the skull were also very tetrapodlike (Vorobyeva and Schultze 1991). Elpistostege is still relatively poorly known, and for understanding the story of the origin of tetrapods, Panderichthys will provide a satisfactory guide. By comparing its skull with that of a very early tetrapod such as Acanthostega, those tetrapodlike features that were present already in Panderichthys can be contrasted with those that had yet to evolve. This gives some ideas about the order and timing of the appearance of some tetrapod characters ..." (Clack, J.A., 2002, "Gaining Ground: The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods," Indiana University Press: Bloomington IN, p.64).

"This review of the lobe-finned fish groups is not complete without the tetrapods, because this is where, evolutionarily speaking, they (and humans) belong. Modern tetrapods include on the one hand the amphibians-frogs, newts, caecilians, and their kin-and on the other the amniotes-mammals plus the `reptile' groups, including turtles, lizards and snakes, and crocodiles and their closest living relatives, the birds. It includes creatures that, although they do not have legs (limbs with digits) themselves, are descended from some that did. So bats and whales are tetrapods, as are birds and snakes. It also includes all the fossil forms such as dinosaurs, flying or swimming reptiles, and many other more bizarre and less well-known kinds, so long as they are descended from ancestors with legs ... Most current views maintain that tetrapods are a natural group, tied together by numerous unique characters that show that the group had a single common ancestor. Among the unique features that tetrapods share is the possession of limbs with digits ..." (Clack, 2002, p.66).

"Some things are clear, however. Both Elginerpeton and Obruchevichthys appear more closely related to tetrapods than was Panderichthys. They are also very closely related to each other, sharing some details that cause them to be placed in the same family (Ahlberg 1995). This family was widely distributed in the Frasnian. They were also different from the slightly later Devonian tetrapods, which will be described in the next chapter. They may represent an early and specialized offshoot from the tetrapod branch. Panderichthys and Elpistostege flourished in the early Frasnian and are some of the nearest relatives of tetrapods. But tetrapods appear only about 5 to 10 million years later in the late Frasnian, by which time they were widely distributed and had evolved into several groups, including the lineage leading to the tetrapods of the Famennian. This suggests that the transition from fish to tetrapod occurred rapidly within this restricted time span. Neither fishlike tetrapods nor tetrapodlike fish body fossils occur in the record before this (Clack 1997a). Indeed, the osteolepiforms as a whole are not found before the Middle Devonian. This lends weight to the suggestion that the tracks from the supposed Late Silurian or Early Devonian are not those of a tetrapod, and those from the Middle Devonian are unlikely to be so. Given our current understanding of phylogeny, tracks made by a terrestrial tetrapod are unlikely to be found before the late Frasnian, and the body fossil evidence conflicts with the interpretation of any pre-Famennian track as terrestrial." (Clack, 2002, p.96).

"Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in a species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of and profits by, the structures of others. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other animals, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." (Darwin, C.R., 1872, "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, Reprinted, 1882, p.162).

"But continuing unhappiness, justified this time, focuses upon claims that speciation causes significant morphological change, for no validation of such a position has emerged .. but why then? For the association of morphological change with speciation remains as a major pattern in the fossil record. We believe that the solution to this dilemma may be provided in a brilliant but neglected suggestion of Futuyma [Futuyma, D.J., "On the role of species in anagenesis," American Naturalist, Vol. 130, 1987, pp.465-473)] He holds that morphological change may accumulate anywhere along the geological trajectory of a species. But unless that change be `locked up' by acquisition of reproductive isolation (that is speciation), it cannot persist or accumulate and must be washed out during the complexity of interdigitation through time among varying populations of a species. Thus, species are not special because their origin permits a unique moment for instigating change, but because they provide the only mechanism for protecting change. Futuyma writes: `In the absence of reproductive isolation, differentiation is broken down by recombination. Given reproductive isolation, however, a species can retain its distinctive complex of characters as its spatial distribution changes along with that of its habitat or niche...Although speciation does not accelerate evolution within populations, it provides morphological changes with enough permanence to be registered in the fossil record. Thus, it is plausible to expect many evolutionary changes in the fossil record to be associated with speciation.' By an extension of the same argument, sequences of speciation are then required for trends: `Each step has had a more than ephemeral existence only because reproductive isolation prevented the slippage consequent on interbreeding other populations...Speciation may facilitate anagenesis by retaining, stepwise, the advances made in any one direction.' Futuyma's simple yet profound insight may help to heal the remaining rifts and integrate punctuated equilibrium into an evolutionary theory hierarchically enriched in its light" (Gould, S.J. & Eldredge, N., 1993, "Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age," Nature, 18 November, Vol 366, pp.223-227, pp.226-227. Ellipses original).

"When the mass media first reported the change in my view of the world, I was quoted us saying that biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved. I had previously written that there was room for a new argument to design in explaining the first emergence of living from nonliving matter-especially where this first living matter already possessed the capacity to reproduce itself genetically. I maintained that there was no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for such a phenomenon. ... The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and `coded chemistry'? ... The origin of self-reproduction is a second key problem. ... A third philosophical dimension to the origin of life relates to the origin of the coding and information processing that is central to all life-forms. ... So how do we account for the origin of life? The Nobel Prize-winning physiologist George Wald once famously argued that `we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.' In later years, he concluded that a preexisting mind ... composed a physical universe that breeds life ... This, too, is my conclusion. The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such `end-directed, self-replicating' life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind." (Flew, A.G.N., 2007, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.123-125, 131-132).

"Origin of tetrapods.-The `why' of tetrapod origin has been often debated. Many of the earliest amphibians appear to have been fairly large forms of carnivorous habits, still spending a large portion of their time in fresh-water pools. Alongside them lived their close relatives, the crossopterygians, similar in food habits and in many structural features and differing markedly only in the lesser development of the paired limbs. Why did the amphibians leave the water? Not to breathe air, for that could be done by merely coming to the surface of the pool. Not because they were driven out in search of food-they were carnivores for whom there was little food on land. Not to escape enemies, for they were among the largest of vertebrates found in the fresh waters from which they came. Their appearance on land seems to have resulted as an adaptation for remaining in the water. The earliest-known amphibians lived much the same sort of life as the related contemporary crossopterygians. Both lived normally in the same streams and pools and both fed on the same fish food. As long as there was plenty of water, the crossopterygian probably was the better off of the two, for he was obviously the better swimmer-legs were in the way. The Devonian, during which land adaptations originated, was seemingly a time of seasonal droughts when life in fresh waters must have been difficult. Even then, if the water merely became stagnant and foul, the crossopterygian could come to the surface and breathe air as well as the amphibian. But if the water dried up altogether, the amphibian had the better of it. The fish, incapable of land locomotion, must stay in the mud and, if the water did not soon return, must die. But the amphibian, with his short and clumsy but effective limbs, could crawl out of the pool and walk overland (probably very slowly and painfully at first) and reach the next pool where water still remained. Once this process had begun, it is easy to see how a land fauna might eventually have been built up. Instead of seeking water immediately, the amphibian might linger on the banks and devour stranded fish. Some types might gradually take to eating insects (primitive ones resembling cockroaches and dragon flies were already abundant) and, finally, plant food. The larger carnivores might take to eating their smaller amphibian relatives. Thus a true terrestrial fauna might be established." (Romer, A.S., 1945, "Vertebrate Paleontology," [1933], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, Fifth Impression, 1953, pp.140-141. Emphasis original).

"Darwin was spared a confrontation with the extraordinarily rapid origins of modern groups of mammals. He knew that the history of mammals extended back to the early part of the Mesozoic, but the record was not well enough studied in his day for him to recognize that the adaptive radiation of modern mammals did not commence until the start of the Cenozoic. Today, our more detailed knowledge of fossil mammals lays another knotty problem at the feet of gradualism. Given a simple little rondentlike animal as a starting point, what does it mean to form a bat in less than ten million years, or a whale in little more time? We can approach this question by measuring how long species of mammals have persisted in geological time. The results are striking; we can now show that fossil mammal populations assigned to a particular Cenozoic lineage typically span the better part of a million years without displaying sufficient net change to be recognized as a new species. The preceding observations permit us to engage in another thought experiment. Let us suppose that we wish, hypothetically, to form a bat or a whale without invoking change by rapid branching. In other words, we want to see what happens when we restrict evolution to the process of gradual transformation of established species. If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. This is clearly preposterous. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodentlike form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!" (Stanley, S.M., 1981, "The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species," Basic Books: New York NY, pp.93-94).

"Although the details are not yet fully known ... many paleontologists agree that land vertebrates, however they first evolved, were related to sarcopterygian lobe-finned fishes. The transition from fish to crawling four-legged tetrapod occurred by the end of the Devonian period, about 360 million years ago during a relatively short geological interval-no more than probably 15 or 20 million years-and encompassed perhaps three or more separate lineages (Carroll 1995)." (Strickberger, M.W., 2000, "Evolution," Jones & Bartlett: Sudbury MA, 1990, Third edition, p.410).

"All in all, Ichthyostega is a mystery of the first water. The theory that the direct application of environmental selection can `collect' the necessary morphological information, integrate it into individuated error checked blueprints, and thus create novel structures in organisms seems impossible to apply to Ichthyostega. How can the world of an aquatic predator quickly select, collect and individuate the information for a highly coherent adaptive blueprint of terrestrial limb structure? The theory that the blueprint already existed in some form in the genomes of the osteolepiform fish sounds more reasonable, but sorting it out under water is still difficult. However, if it were true, and if a life style of living on fish stranded on the edge of the swamp could provide a mild selective pressure, the previous encoding of a individuated blueprint could at least explain its tight coherence when it first appears." (Wilcox, D.L., 1990, "Created in Eternity, Unfolded in Time," Eastern College: St. Davids PA, Unpublished manuscript, Chapter 6, pp.23-24).

"Found in Latvia, this two-foot-long fish had a skull as flat as a coffee table and a smooth back that lacked the dorsal fins of other lobe-fins. Its shoulders-and the fins that attached to them-were so sturdy that it might have been able to move on them like crutches out of the water for short distances. Like coelacanths and lungfish, it probably could move with the left-right, left-right movements that would become our walk. Still, it would be impossible to mistake Panderichthys for a tetrapod. Its toeless limbs were buried inside a ring of fin rays, its braincase was still hinged, and instead of a stapes Panderichthys had a hyomandibular bone that was linked to its jaws and gills. In 10 or 15 million years, however, relatives of Panderichthys reworked their bodies into tetrapod form. Elginerpeton, the beast that Per Ahlberg found hiding in museum drawers, is not only the oldest tetrapod known but the most primitive as well. Its snout turned into a massive snapping trap, ligaments joined its pelvis to its spine. With only fragments of its limbs, it's impossible to know if there were toes yet, but Elginerpeton shows many signs of being an intermediate between lobe-fins like Panderichthys and later tetrapods. Its rear legs were twisted so much that its knees (if it had them) would have pointed to the ground, making the legs useless for walking but good for rowing. Judging from the fact that Elginerpeton was five feet long and hunted on river bottoms, one can assume that the first tetrapods must have been moderately successful at living like a lobe-fin. Within a few million years Elginerpeton was gone, but new kinds of tetrapods were evolving all around the world." (Zimmer, C., 1998, "At the Waters Edge: Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea," Touchstone: New York NY, Reprinted, 1999, pp.104-105).