fdocc

Jan 262006
 

Interested in the penetration of Intelligent Design into pop culture, including its Hip-Hop music, we present today an excerpt that can be listened here (mp3), or the full song here:

Achilles
“… Wounds of Darwinian theory will never heal
Once the population finds Intelligent Design
Enzymes hold the signs of a divine Mind
Darwinian speculation is useless
To explain emergence
Of cellular machines below the surface
Seeing Specified Complexity points to a purpose
Of a system of intergrated parts
Excluding chance as part
Of how it could ever start…” – Atom.

atomAtom, composer of the track Achilles, found on his album The Day the World Changed, hard-hitting beats and rhyme, with an emphasis on lyricism and thought-provoking content… Hip-Hop with an intelligent edge.

Atom was his label’s winner of the Solo Artist of 2005.

A UK listener commented on this song:

Achilles – Mech Bladez Mix’..a real savage melody that can only be dreamt of..but Atom sorted it real well, it boasts probably the best chorus and an extremley intricate set of lyrics that would make most professional m.c’s give respect. [Acrosoma, the Middlemen, from the Midlands – UK]

A song where you can listen some excellent MCs singing acappella, the name of the group is “Redeemed Thought” (friends of Atom), and their song is entitled Love Is

 Posted by at 11:33 am
Jan 202006
 

Intelligent Design’s Prediction: Compatible Mates (cross male x female) Interbreed Producing Fertile Offspring

Antecedent:
It has been demonstrated that the next finches produce fertile offspring: Geospiza fortis (medium ground finch) hybridizes with G. scandens (cactus finch), and with G. fuliginosa (small ground finch).

Experimental Hypothesis:
Intelligent Design, through Mendelian Bioengineering predicts that the rest of Geospiza sp. finches will also be able to produce interfertile offspring.

Expansion:
After exhausting the previous experiments, the hypothesis can be expanded to include the misclassified different finches ‘genus‘ of Cactospiza sp., Platyspiza sp., Camarhynchus sp. and Certhidia sp. (see picture) finches Continue reading »

 Posted by at 9:38 am
Jan 202006
 

Laupala
The Laupala cricket of Hawaii, picture by Kerry Shaw.

As a species begins to split into two separate species, says Mendelson, “the songs appear to be the first characteristic that changes.”

Here, Mendelson is really talking about a variety splitting into two separate varieties able to interbreed! As she pursues:

“Members of closely related species possess no physiological differences that would prevent them from interbreeding.”

These are just varieties sold as different ‘species’!

The subtitle of that original paper, since the start clearly indicated the speculative nature of it:

Tamra C. Mendelson & Kerry L. Shaw. 2005. Sexual behaviour: Rapid speciation in an arthropod. The likely force behind an explosion of new Hawaiian cricket species is revealed. Nature 433, 375-6 (PDF), and Supplementary Info.

However, even with its speculative nature, Science presented this reference as one of the strong evidences for “evolution in action“. Overstatement corrected by Casey Luskin as Microevolution in Action

In the most recent paper by the same authors, we can read that the speculative likelihood or assumption presented as “factual evidence” by the two major scientific journals (Nature & Science) was completely WRONG:

Mendelson, T.C. and Shaw, K.L. 2006. Close-range acoustic signaling and mate choice in Hawaiian crickets. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (PDF).

“…the hypothesis that the premating barrier between L. paranigra and L. kohalensis is maintained by the female’s preference for a conspecific male’s song at close range was not supported by the present study.”

Other critical excerpts can be found at:

The Laupala Cricket Variation

So, once more, the fraud of evolution is overselling variation within compatible organisms at the price of a mythical ‘speciation

Yesterday, Myrmecos, an Insect Systematist responded at ARN in his original posting with the next words:

The term “fraud” would indicate a conscious attempt to deceive. The fact that the authors openly publish their data that cast some doubt on previous speculations suggests the opposite of fraud.

What, then, is the basis for your accusation?

So, Myrmecos is diverting the attention from the biological aspect that he originally and wrongfully entitled (remember, Nature‘s paper was a speculation) as “Rapid speciation: observations match Darwinian theory

Here is my expanded response.

At ARN I wrote today:

Bottom line is: How long evolution is going to deliberately and “conveniently” allow for the careless confusion of the fact of variation within compatible organisms with the speculative concept of ‘speciation’?

Can you define your best version of the word ‘speciation‘ and why the evolutionary concept of ‘speciation‘ is not corrected to mean variation within compatible organisms?

Here, I will expand my response to Myrmecos: Continue reading »

 Posted by at 8:20 am
Jan 162006
 

Carelessly, Douglas Altshuler declared:

Doug Alt

“Proponents of intelligent design … have long criticized science for not being able to explain … how bees fly

Now Stephen E. Jones has taken a stand for ID to make Altshuler to document his claim or to retract himself.

Krauze and Patrick are following the developments of this story, so do we.

What about mass journals distorting the facts?

What about the unfounded statement of Dr. Francis S. Collins, quoted by Newsweek (previous link) when he carelessly declared:

“[ID] says, if there’s some part of science that you can’t understand, that must be where God is.”

Or what about the careless statement of Dr. Dennis Alexander when he wrote:

“ID proponents commonly use ‘naturalistic’ as a synonym for ‘scientific’ ”

Here, Altshuler, Collins and Alexander are siding with the ID-opposition by putting words never said by real “proponents of ID.”

None of these Doctors can document their careless words against an ID-guided research program!

So, is Altshuler single-handedly “poisoning the well” or not?

(Last quoted words written by Mats in Dr. Dembski’s Blog.)

 Posted by at 8:32 am
Jan 112006
 

Today, more than an hour ago, I enjoyed Bruce Feiler‘s episode two of the program “Walking the Bible” (aired by PBS) and entitled “The Israelites in Egypt

I got to see the actual ruins of the storage cities for Pharaoh described in Exodus 1:11: Pithom and Raamses:

“They [the Israelites] built storage cities for Pharaoh: Pithom and Raamses.”

Then, Feiler visited the ‘Sea of Reeds‘, that was opened for the Israelites to pass like over dry land, while closing down when the Egyptian chariots attempted to pass through. Here, Feiler was talking about how the King James Translation of ‘the Red Sea‘, could better be translated from the Hebrew as ‘the Sea of Reeds‘.

Before, I got to see how Bruce and his guide, and of course, the cameraman ascended the irregular stairs to reach the top of one of the three classic Pyramids of Egypt… the next one, with a blunt cut:
Bruce Ascended to the top of the Pyramid at the right side
… and from the top of it they filmed the amazing landscape.

I am looking forward to see the next week Episode Three of “Walking the Bible“: Toward The Promised Land: Forty Years in the Desert

For me, the Bible is so beautiful, so marvelous. The Bible is the best book that has ever existed. The Bible is the most certain truth and the highest treasure to live and to die for”

From this Teleological forum I openly send my deepest congratulations to PBS and to Bruce Feiler for their lively journey through the Bible Lands, opening them for us to learn and to see!

 Posted by at 8:52 pm
Jan 092006
 

The variability within compatible organisms has been misused with the purpose to try to support the ideas of Darwin and of the current and flawed ideas of evolutionism.

Darwinism invented a term called “speciation” to pursue the “origin of species” envisioned by Darwin; however, every example of “speciation” to be published can be easily reduced to the simple variation within genetically compatible organisms, which reduces such concept to the category of “sub-speciation” or variation (new lines, races, breeds or lineage making).

Next, we provide the current definitions of “speciation” , and even if those definitions are rich in careless semantics and tricky terminologies, they clearly indicate that current biologists influenced by a Darwinian evolution, think that new biological species, completely independent and genetically incompatible with their ancestors can be originated.

However, that concept of “speciation” has been defeated time after time by the facts of fertile interbreeding, producing fertile offspring, of the supposedly independent species, and on some cases, even by the supposedly (and erroneously) ‘isolated’ Genus (see shorebirds, dolphins, elephants, etc.)

Speciation, according to the Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (2004) is:

The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones. [The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 2nd Edition Copyright © 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company.]

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 10:23 am
Dec 092005
 

Jerry Adler with Anne Underwood and W. L. Adams wrote an article for Newsweek (Nov. 28, 2005 for the U.S.A.; Dec. 12, 2005 for the international edited version. In the cover of that magazine they declared “Evolution vs. ‘Intelligent Design’: Round II” ).

In their most unfortunate comment, they wrote that

“…the Bible has nothing to impart about the genetic relationships among the finches he [Darwin] did find…”

You can see the full context at the end of that article.

In the print edition of that magazine, in pages 54 and 55, under the figure of the different Galapagos’ finches, we read an excerpt written by Josh Ulick:

Origins of an Idea. Darwin was amazed by the diversity of finches on the Galapagos: each species has a unique beak tailored to its specific diet. He theorized that the dozen or so variations arose from a single ancestor whose descendants spread out and adapted to different conditions, eventually evolving into separate species. This idea became cornerstone in his theory of evolution.”

However, the Bible, by declaring in Genesis Chapter One that living organisms reproduce after their own kind, is more accurate than the currently held idea that the Galapagos Finches are different species produced by ‘evolution’.

Why those writings attempting to be for the purpose of “popularizing scientific ideas” fall so short hiding the fact that the different finches interbreed producing fertile offspring?

Let’s put a common comparison with which all of us may relate, because the currently held and deliberate mistake of considering the finches as examples of evolution is as wrong as if each of the different breeds of dogs were considered as different species.

So, imagine that what currently is happening to the finches is like to consider a “Canis bernardensis” (St. Bernard Dog) a different “species” of dog evolved to endure cold weathers, while wrongly considering “Canis chihuahuensis” (Chihuahua Dog) as another different “species” that evolved to endure living on the mountains, then another dog “evolved” short legs to be able to walk under small spaces, etc., etc. What is wrong with that picture of dogs? It is wrong that in the same way that the different breeds of dogs are able to interbreed producing fertile offspring one with another, in the same way the different finches are able to reproduce among themselves, which means that both groups of animals are genetically compatible within themselves. Continue reading »

 Posted by at 11:51 am
Dec 092005
 

In Newsweek (Dec. 12, 2005) we read:

” “Even people who aren’t comfortable with Darwin’s ideas,” says Niles Eldredge, the museum’s curator of paleontology, “are fascinated by the man.”

In part, the fascination with the man is being driven by his enemies, who say they’re fighting “Darwinism,” rather than evolution or natural selection. “It’s a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like ‘Maoism,” says Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson, editor of one of the two Darwin anthologies just published. “Scientists,” Wilson adds, “don’t call it ‘Darwinism‘.”

Here, E. O. Wilson argued that only non scientists use the term “Darwinism” as a “rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith. Like “Maoism” . Wilson says that real scientists rather use the term “evolution” and “natural selection” . Well, first we already presented the bogus “evidences” (likewise the finches) that he and his “pals” own to “prove” their concept of evolution. Second, “Maoism” is “a political imposition of communism” , and third, PubMed presents indexed articles using the word “Darwinism” .

But, who is that fully erratic E. O. Wilson?

David C. Stove, in his Darwinian Fairytales wrote about him:

“There are physiological or behavioural signals of submission which in our species, in dogs, and in many other animals, terminate fights between conspecifics, or prevent them from starting, or at the least usually prevent them from ending in a death. The existence of these signals, according to professor E. O. Wilson, the leader of the sociobiological school, is profoundly puzzling. They constitute, he says, ‘a considerable theoretical difficulty: why not always try to kill or maim the enemy outright?‘ [Wilson, E.O. (1975), Sociobiology. Harvard University Press, Boston, p. I29.] This scholarly enquiry might will cause you, if you are a mere normal man, and can remember being in a school playground fight or two, a sharp intake of breath. But if, of course, you are a Darwinian, and believe that all organisms, including yourself, are engaged in a struggle for life, or if you take for granted that humans and all other animals are selfish – why not, indeed…? (Stove’s p. 82)”

“…. If Professor Wilson were right, it would be a ‘considerable theoretical difficulty’ why Darwin did not try to kill or maim Samuel Butler, for example, or why Wilson himself does not try to kill or maim his bitter enemy and Harvard colleague, Professor R. C. Lewontin. But this is not a considerable theoretical difficulty. It is just a joke, and a stupid one at that (p. 83; see also p. 221)… But it is perfectly obvious that once Darwinian armour plating has reached this degree of thickness, it is completely impenetrable by common sense, or even sanity. The fact is, there is no problem about human altruism. The only problem is Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. (p. 95)”

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 11:09 am
Dec 092005
 

According to Newsweek Darwin was “an ardent abolitionist” , deeply offended by Christians who owned slaves (p. 56 of the print magazine for Nov. 28, 2005)…

Well, let’s see what a relative declared of the biological and ‘spiritual’ Darwins in general:

“Gwen Raverat was a daughter of Charles Darwin’s son George. She wrote a wonderful book entitled Period Piece, (1952), about her childhood and her numerous Darwin relatives. Late in that book she remarks that the Darwins in general ‘were quite unable to understand the minds of the poor, the wicked, or the religious.’ [Raverat, G. (1952), Period Piece, Faber and Faber, London, p. 209.]

This is most profoundly true. And it is true not only of Darwins, or of Darwinians of the blood royal such as Galton, but of all Darwinians of what might be called ‘the pure strain’ of intellectual descent from Darwin: for example Fisher, Darlington, E. O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins. And it means, of course, a rather large gap in their understanding of human life; since the poor, the wicked, and the religious, must make up, on any estimate, at least three-quarters of all human beings.

But true as Gwen Raverat’s remark is, and far as it goes, it does not go nearly far enough. For there are many and large classes of people who are neither poor nor wicked nor religious, but who are still a closed book to the characteristically Darwinian cast of mind. They are the heroes, the adoptive parents, the men who do not kill every enemy they successfully fight, the intelligent mothers who detest kidnappers… (Stove’s p. 224)” Continue reading »

 Posted by at 10:56 am
Dec 022005
 

Guadalajara hosted Intelligent Design with Dr. Paul Nelson:

Guadalajara, Mexico: Dr. Paul Nelson, ARN Board member and Discovery Institute Fellow, lectured on Intelligent Design at the beautiful campus of the Autonomous University of Guadalajara (UAG), the oldest and most distinguished private university in Mexico. It was a tremendous event (packed auditorium) with all the intellectual freedom and institutional support that one could want. The next day, the university biologists escorted Dr. Nelson to a resort hotel owned by the UAG on Lake Chapala in the mountains of Jalisco, where they enjoyed a lively seminar on the problems with macroevolution, and where Dr. Nelson again enjoyed support and intellectual freedom currently unimaginable in the United States. [Taken from: ARN-Announce, Dennis Wagner, editor. Number Fifty, December 1, 2005]

Click here to read Dr. Paul Nelson at the Discovery Institute.

Other countries more open to detecting the precious designs in nature and to copy them are going to take over the next step for the freedom and progress in science!

The irony is that the U.S.A. was the initial cradle for Intelligent Design in Science!

 Posted by at 7:12 pm