Teleological Blog

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.

Atom, 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

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 »

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 »

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 »