Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Overwhelming Evidence


Here at last is Kansas City’s singing sensation the Mutations performing “Overwhelming Evidence”: www.uncommondescent.com/videos/Overwhelming_Evidence.wmv

(to the tune of “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough,” adapted by Jonathan Wells)

Listen, people
Evolution’s true
We can promise you,
Cause we’ve got evidence, people.

You say our textbooks lie,
But only in your eyes,
Cause you’re creationists,
While we are scientists.
At the end of the day,
The truth is what we say ­

Cause we’ve got
Overwhelming evidence,
Overwhelming evidence,
Overwhelming evidence ­
To prove that our theory’s true.

Oh, the peppered moths
Aren’t where we thought
It’s a big mistake
And the photos are fake.
We know it’s unreal,
But it’s no big deal ­

Cause we’ve got
Overwhelming evidence,
Overwhelming evidence,
Overwhelming evidence ­
To prove that evolution is true.

Haeckel’s embryos
Are not the way it goes.
Fish and human parts
Are different from the start;
But the story’s intact
And evolution’s a fact ­

Cause we’ve got
Overwhelming evidence,
Overwhelming evidence,
Overwhelming evidence ­
So we don’t have to listen to you!

Overwhelming evidence,
Overwhelming evidence,
Overwhelming evidence ­
So we don’t have to listen to you!

[...] Take a look at Jonathan Wells's "Overwhelming Evidence" video.  Its a [...] Garner gets Behe’d | Uncommon Descent
[...] selection having a major role in shaping evolution is lousy. Yet children are told the theory has Overwhelming Evidence. Indeed, after 50 years of investigation, we can’t convincingly demonstrate selection for [...] Darwinist chastised for spinning “just so” stories, but he still brings home the bacon | Uncommon Descent
I never said it did. What I was referring to was the number of chambers or are you going to deny that as well? It starts out as a tube and ends up with four chambers. That recapitulates our ancestry to a tee or do I understand that you don't think we had any ancestors. Don't be shy, speak right up. I very carefully used the words "like a." Words have meaning and I used mine carefully as I always do. Don't misrepresent me. It makes me irritable. Got that? Why don't you tell us what you believe. That is what I have always done. That is why have so many enemies. I am always willing to have a few more. I love it so! John Davison
JD, The embryonic mammalian heart does not start out like the heart of the adult amphioxus, it does not metamorphose into an adult teleost heart, an adult amphibian heart or an adult bird heart. Got that? DW DaveWatt
DaveWatt The heart in every vertebrate embryo begins as a simple tube like the heart of Amphioxus which progressively metamorphoses into one with two chambers, like a fish, next into three like an amphibian then finally into four like a bird or mammal. Furthermore it does this without losing a drop of blood. Don't tell me that Haeckel's recapitulation "theory" is "entirely wrong." It only proves you are no embryologist. Got that? Write that down. What do you do for a living or would you rather not say? John Davison
Good for you DaveWatt whoever that really is. Write a paper to that effect and try to get it published. Good luck. John Davison
JD: Haeckel's recapitulation theory - that embryos recapitulate the adult forms of their ancestors - is entirely wrong. DS: I'm glad you think the song is silly. - DaveW DaveWatt
Haeckel's recapitulation hypothesis is not entirely wrong at all. Every metazoan develops through a stage called the gastrula. That stage has a single opening into what will become the digestive system. In the Deuterostomia (Echinoderms and Chordates), that opening is closely associated with, if not identical with, the anus of the adult. As the name suggests the mouth develops secondarily. In the Protostomia (most of the rest of the Metazoa) that opening becomes the mouth wih the anus developing secondarily. Similarly, the nervous system of all embryos develops from the ectoderm of the embryo by a process of infolding. In all vertebrate embryos the liver arises as an outgrowth of the embryonic gut as do the lungs. There are many other similaities in the development of embryos and the features of the adults they eventually become. Just because Ernst Haeckel, in his Darwinian enthusiasm, presented some rather idealized diagrams is no reason to dismiss him out of hand. He was a darn good zoologist and a fabulous artist and naturalist who just got a little carried away. So did August Weismann. Someone once wisely said that Weismann was more Darwinian than Darwin and Darwin was more Lamarckian than Lamarck. One thing that Lamarck said about the origin of new structures impresses me and may have a kernel of truth in it. He said they originated as a result of what he called an "inner urge." Urges come from within. As far as I am concerned so did everything else. How do you hide-bound, myopic Darwimpian mystics out there in never-never land like those departures from the "one true faith," the most infantile, over tested, under verified hypothesis in the history of science? I hope they tie you up for a week. Relax with the Exlax. Happy Birhday Charlie baby. I love it so! John Davison
More great Evolutionary Rock available on Itunes.... "Can't Get No Re-pli-ca-tion" (Rolling Stones) "Can't Buy Me Lunch" (Beatles) "Black Magic Mutant" (Santana) "The Bridge Over Troubled Science & Theology" (Simon & Garfunkle) "Hit Me With Your Random Shot" (Pat Benatar) "Bad To The DNA" - (Goerge Thorogood & The Destroyers) "We Will Sue You" (Queen) "Hocus Pocus Crocas Locus" (Focus) "American Dogmatist" (The Guess Who) "Aquatic Lung Development" (Jethro Tull) Red Reader
Awesome! ;) JoshG
Here's one from (Darwin's) Beetles: (The Design) Revolution You say you'll stop the revolution Well you know There's a sea change underway You tell me that it's "evolution" [Darwinian, that is] Well you know We all see change, anyway. [microevolution, that is] But when you talk about mutation [random, that is] Don't you know that you can count it out. Don't you know it's gotta be ID All ID, All ID [that's responsible for CSI and IC] You say that it's natural selection Well you know How'd it make a body plan? You use your imagination [just-so evolution stories] Well you know It's doing what nature can't But when you make monkeys of people, it's minds you hate [denying there's anything special about the human mind] All I can tell you is, Darwin, it's getting late [actually, it's over already] Don't you know it's gotta be ID All ID, All ID You say it's against the constitution [to teach it in science class, that is] Well you know That judge ain't right in his head [bad decision] You hide behind your institutions [avoiding debate] Well you know You'd better free your mind -- it's dead [Darwinism] But if you go worshipping ideas of Charlie, now You ain't gonna draw right conclusions anyhow Don't you know it's gotta be ID All ID, All ID :-) j

I quoted the lines from his song above, which I think refers to his writings about Haeckel in "Icons of Evolution".


Four lines from a silly song is all you're going on? That's a joke right? Hahaha. Good one. Now really, what are you basing your incredulity on? -ds DaveWatt


I am well aware that Haeckel's recapitulation theory is wrong. I don't think that's what Wells was getting at. I think he's denying that vertebrate embryos share many features in their body plans after gastrulation, and denies that these shared features are evidence for common descent. What do you think?


Could you please quote whatever it is that Wells wrote that makes you think that? -ds DaveWatt

"Haeckel’s embryos
Are not the way it goes.
Fish and human parts
Are different from the start"

What is Wells referring to here? The fact that the pattern of fish and human gastrulation is different? Or the fact that fish have a lot of yolk and humans don't? To me, the fish and human parts seem very similar:



An encyclopedia is often a good place to start and this case is no exception. -ds DaveWatt
Nice "song" ;-) Mats
The only beautiful liberal women are concentrated in Hollywood and they are mostly dumb as a box of rocks. John Davison
Woah! Easy with the Misogynistic outbursts there Boesman. ;) Scott

Those girls should be making me a sandwich NOT singing about something they know nothing about.

This is getting filed under "Famous last words". -ds Boesman

Those molecules in motion sure can throw down some crunk moves.

Seriously though... can I get that 2 minutes of my life back?


That's some funny stuff!

Did you know that 95% of the women in the ID vs. Darwinian evolution debate are smart and beautiful?

Science so far has been unable to figure out why the other 5% are all on Darwin's side...

It has a great beat and you can dance to it. I give it an 80. Does anyone else have a crush on the green mutation? Charlie
Sweet. When will they be on Letterman? saxe17

Leave a Reply