Research on Intelligent Design

To put together scientific advances from the perspective of Intelligent Design.

Friday, January 27, 2006

The New 27 Cave Bugs

Last Sunday, I read it in the newspaper. Today, we can see here 6 of those 27 bugs.

From: Sequoia National Park, California.
"spiders, centipedes, scorpion-like creatures and other animals have been discovered in the dark, damp caves beneath two national parks in the Sierra Nevada... included a relative of the pill bug so translucent that its internal organs are visible, particularly its long, bright yellow liver. There was also a daddy long legs with jaws bigger than its body, and a tiny fluorescent orange spider."

Taken from:

A spider-like creature called a harvestman.

"Not only are these animals new to science, but they're adapted to very specific environments -- some of them, to a single room in one cave," said Joel Despain, a cave specialist who helped explore 30 of the 238 known caves in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks."
"While it is extremely rare to find new mammal or bird species on the surface, caves still hold an abundance of secrets. Like the deep sea, they are often difficult to reach and seldom explored."

Next, a cave woodlouse, a millipede, a soldiers dipluran (eyeless silverfish) and a spider, respectively (from the same study):

Taken from:

Taken from:

However, y'all see at your own risk the ugly and fat "pseudo scorpion", from the same study (smile.)

Taken from:

Taken from:

The species have yet to be named, described scientifically... "We don't know how long they live, what kind of habitat they prefer..." Krejca said.

Well, of course not the beach! Not even sunny surfaces! Those critters obviously prefer the environments of the caves in which they were found! ... However, I wonder, how many of them are just compatible VARIETIES of their related counterparts that we already know over the surface?

Add this list and images to the previously presented Bioengineering and The Discovery of New Organisms.

Other link: Scientist highlights diversity of cave life, by Leon Alligood.

See other cave-dwellers at:

The Maggot (Rhagoletis Fly) Variation

The Lonicera fly (Rhagoletis pomonella), a new natural variety, product of interbreeding between the blueberry maggot (Rhagoletis mendax) and the snowberry maggot (Rhagoletis zephyria.)

In the public discourse of this finding, or at least in the first abstract presentation on the subject, the use of the word 'speciation' was not even used at all by its authors:

The other hybrid bridge - Hybridization between specialist insects facilitates host shifts. 2004. Dietmar Schwarz, Bruce McPheron. [Tuesday, August 3, 8:00 AM to 11:30 AM. The Ecological Society of America (ESA), Portland, Or.]

However, almost a year later, evolution and its 'speciational' discourse and politics were evident, together with its fallacies and its non-sense, let's see (remember to replace the senseless word of 'speciation' with the more accurate word of variation (as well as to replace here 'species' with the accurate word variety) as we are dealing here with variation within compatible organisms):

Schwarz D, Matta BM, Shakir-Botteri NL, McPheron BA. Host shift to an invasive plant triggers rapid animal hybrid speciation. Nature. 2005 Jul 28;436(7050):546-9.

From Nature's the Abstract:
"An alternative speciation route is homoploid hybrid speciation (1) in which two ancestral taxa give rise to a third, derived, species by hybridization without a change in chromosome number.

Although theoretically possible it has been regarded as rare (1) and hence of little importance in animals.

On the basis of molecular and chromosomal evidence, hybridization is the best explanation for the origin of a handful of extant diploid bisexual animal taxa (2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

The frequency of homoploid hybrid speciation in animals may therefore be higher than previously assumed." [Note: The reference's numbers in the original]
Now, let's see how the evolutionarily biased media presented it:

New animal species evolved in an instant, Bob Holmes. news service. 18:24 27 July 2005.
"A new species of insect may have arisen in an evolutionary eye-blink as a result of cross-species mating. The discovery suggests that hybridisation - well known to be an important force in producing new plant species - may also be widespread in animals."

"...The researchers are not yet willing to declare the honeysuckle maggot has completed this process [of a speculated and non-existent evolutionary 'speciation'], Schwarz says, because they have not ruled out the possibility of a low level of interbreeding with at least one of the parent species."

"If hybridisation often leads to shifts in host preference, it could be much more important in animal evolution than anyone had suspected, says Schwarz. After all, many - perhaps even most - animal species on Earth live in tight association with a particular host. "It makes one think it is possible for hybridisation to be important in generating biodiversity," says Thomas Dowling, an evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University in Tempe, US."

My comment: In January 15 2005 my paper on Intelligent Design to Generate Biodiversity was posted at ISCID. Directed hybridisation will indeed still be "important in generating biodiversity"

See how the 'evolution-avid' distorters of reality from National Geographic presented it:

Evolution Revolution: Two Species Become One, Study Says. By James Owen for National Geographic News. July 27, 2005.

In the picture for this article we read the next legend:
Rhagoletis pomonella (Photo: Guy Bush)

"The newly discovered Lonicera fly species arose through hybridization, a new study says. Two other fly species mated and formed a hybrid, a combined form that cannot mate with its fellow hybrids. Given a separate niche in which to evolve—in this case, an alien huneysuckle imported to the U.S. — a hybrid animal can become a full-fledged new species, according to researchers."

So, here the National Geographic bullies are affirming that the new variety of maggot is "a combined form that cannot mate with its fellow hybrids." However, we just read in the other "proevo-promo" that the original researchers "have not ruled out the possibility of a low level of interbreeding with at least one of the parent species."

So, in their 'little' ideological extreme, National Geographic is affirming an evolutionary fairy tale or fallacy not even subscribed by the scientists that did the study themselves!

Then, National Geographic declares that
"George Turner is a professor of evolutionary biology and biodiversity at the University of Hull in England. He agrees that animal evolution through hybridization may be much more widespread than previously believed."
Remember, here we are in reality dealing with variation within compatible animals. A new variety fully fertile and fully able to interbreed with the other varieties of the group.

Then, there we have National Geographic again declaring that:
"Hybrids that aren't sterile may have the opportunity to become a full-blown new species."
That we know must be corrected to better reflect reality as: >"Hybrids that aren't sterile may have the opportunity to become a full-blown new VARIETY."

Finally, Schwarz said. "In animals there has been so far only limited information on this mode of speciation."

In this mode of what? In this mode of VARIATION! You got it!

The first author of that paper declares:
Dietmar Schwarz. Postdoctoral Scholar, Entomology, PSU. Diplom Biology, Christian-Albrechts University Kiel, Germany. Ph.D. Entomology, Penn State.
"I study the natural hybridization of Rhagoletis mendax and Rhagoletis zephyria, which is associated with a host shift to introduced honeysuckle, Lonicera spp."
And he also declares
:"My research focuses on the evolutionary and ecological consequences of hybridization - especially its role in speciation - in host specific insects. The system that I am using is the Lonicera Fly, a newly discovered population within the Rhagoletis pomonella species group. The Lonicera Fly is an independent population that arose by hybridization between two native taxa, R. mendax and R. zephyria, and hybrid origin genotypes are only found on introduced species of the Lonicera tatarica complex. This system represents a unique example for a combination between hybridization and a recent host shift in a host specific animal."
In the personal statement of Dietmar Schwarz we have the evidence that his work is done in "a newly discovered population within the Rhagoletis pomonella," which is "an independent population that arose by hybridization between two native taxa, R. mendax and R. zephyria." This is variation within compatible organisms, plain in simple. This is not the evolutionary graal for "the origin of species", this is not the speculative 'speciation' at all, this is not "macroevolution" at all!

For academic purposes, let's conclude with the basic references presented by the author in his original thesis:

Natural Hybridization And Speciation In Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae) 2004 Dietmar Schwarz (Full PhD Thesis in PDF).
"During speciation by introgressive hybridization, hybrid offspring do not become immediately reproductively isolated, but can still interbreed with the parental taxa to some extent. This results in the formation of a “group of recombinant individuals” (Dowling, T. E., and C. L. Secor. 1997. The role of hybridization and introgression in the diversification of animals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:593-619), which may evolve reproductive isolation from its parents. Well-documented examples for introgressive hybridization are rare both in animals and in plants (Dowling, T. E., and B. D. DeMarais. 1993. Evolutionary significance of introgressive hybridization in cyprinid fishes. Nature 362:444-446; Rieseberg, L. H. 1997. Hybrid origins of plant species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:359-89). It is unclear whether speciation by introgressive hybridization is a mode of speciation that occurs only rarely in nature or whether it is just difficult to document (Dowling and Secor 1997). Unlike polyploidization, it does not leave a characteristic signature in the hybrid species’ genome.

The mechanisms by which animal hybrid swarms become reproductively and ecologically isolated are poorly understood. The literature contains only three examples
of speciation by introgressive hybridization in animals. They comprise three fish
(DeMarais, B. D., T. E. Dowling, M. E. Douglas, W. L. Minckley, and P. C. Marsh. 1992. Origin of Gila seminuda (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) through introgressive hybridization: Implications for evolution and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 89:2747-2751; Salzburger, W., S. Baric, and C. Sturmbauer. 2002. Speciation via introgressive hybridization in East African cichlids? Molecular Ecology 11:619; Smith, P. F., A. Konings, and I. Kornfield. 2003. Hybrid origin of a cichlid population in Lake Malawi: implications for genetic variation and species diversity. Molecular Ecology 12:2497-2504) and one mammalian example (Wayne, R. K., and S. M. Jenks. 1991. Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf Canis rufus. Nature 351:565-568). These studies provide morphological and genetic evidence that make a hybrid origin the most likely explanation for the origin of an extant species, but do not report empirical data on potential mechanisms of speciation. In all four cases the authors explicitly or implicitly state that allopatric speciation is the most likely mechanism by which these animal hybrid taxa became isolated.

In plants, the work by Rieseberg and coworkers provides the best-documented example for speciation by introgressive hybridization (Rieseberg, L. H., C. Van Fossen, and A. M. Desrochers. 1995. Hybrid speciation accompanied by genomic reorganization in wild sunflowers. Nature 375:313-316; Rieseberg, L. H., B. Sinervo, C. R. Linder, M. C. Ungerer, and D. M. Arias. 1996. Role of gene interactions in hybrid speciation: evidence from ancient and experimental hybrids. Science 272:741-745). These authors showed that certain species of sunflowers formed by hybridization between two parent taxa with the same chromosome number. By experimental studies Rieseberg et al. (1995 and 1996) showed that, although the hybrid taxa had the same chromosome number as their parents, they were distinguished by chromosomal reorganizations from the parent taxa that serve as a reproductive barrier. Rieseberg (1997) uses the term “homoploid” to distinguish examples like the hybrid sunflowers from “polyploid” hybrid species. Dowling and Secor (1997) propose a parallel term for animal hybrids that originated by introgressive hybridization. They term such taxa “diploid, bisexual hybrid species.”
Which are “Diploid, bisexual hybrid VARIETIES!.” So, here we have seen that such examples, no matter how frequently are chanted as examples of 'speciation', are just examples of variation within compatible organisms, as is the case for the cichlids and as is the case for the red wolf, already seen.

So, my dear student, once again "Don't be fooled by the evolutionary establishment and by its deceiving press releases"!

The fingerprints of Shannon Melendi versus Colvin "Butch" Hinton III, her killer

In its last show, "48 Hours Investigates" presented the case of a multiple criminal (Colvin "Butch" Hinton III) which may be freed in 14 years from now (No Way!). The handling of the evidence was extremely poor as not to preserve or detect any fingerprint of the criminal in the vehicle of the victim or in the evidence left at the place of the criminal's phone call. With an ID thinking I may suggest looking for the unexpected evidence, like the fingerprints of the victim (Shannon Melendi) in every possible location in which she may have been held as prisoner.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

The Cichlid Variation

Yesterday, I wrote in My last comments on the Laupala cricket variation: "Let's see which other organism the [‘Laupala diversity’] authors include in their attempt to justify their speculations":

"The highest speciation rate [among Laupala] is exceeded only by that of the rapidly speciating African cichlid fish... African cichlid fish exemplify this process,with sister species differing primarily in male coloration, a secondary sexual trait. From this pattern, it has been argued that the spectacular diversification in African cichlid fish is driven by sexual selection..."
"Is this really so? Is it really that cichlids are 'speciating' into different 'species'? NO!. The cichlid fishes are also able to interbreed producing fertile offspring, being just varieties as well (not so different to the human or the dog diversity.)"

Richard B, Hoppe responded at ISCID, to my Intelligent Design to Generate Biodiversity after I asked him why similar organisms interbreeding were being used as ‘examples’ of a non-existent 'speciation':

... Life is finite, and one expends one's time and effort according to some priorities. This particular question, being answerable (with some effort) by he who asked it, is not a top priority for me. I will note that a search on [cichlids speciation] on Google Scholar yields nearly 1,000 hits.”
To him I wrote in response: "Those Cichlids that you mentioned before are just "subspecies", not "new species" which is the presumed [and inflated, I must add] claim for evolutionary 'speciation', which is 'par' to a non-existent 'macroevolution'."

"Being the key and practical factor, the "FERTILE OFFSPRING".

In these cloudy areas, bright color morphs have disappeared and the fish have become similar and dull in appearance through hybridization (Seehausen et al. 1997).

So, cichlids produce viable and vigorous fertile hybrids according to the paper co-authored by the same Ole Seehausen:
Turner GF, Seehausen O, Knight ME, Allender CJ, Robinson RL. How many species of cichlid fishes are there in African lakes? Mol Ecol. 2001 Mar;10(3):793-806 (see its quotes below the picture).

Taken From:

In this picture you can see that the 10 different cichlids here portrayed, are not only and erroneously considered as if being members of different 'species', but worst, as if being members of 'different' 'genus', and that without including the fertile interbreeders between Pundamilia x Platytaeniodus (also considered erroneusly as two different 'genus'), as mentioned in the next paragraph. So, here again, there is one true species with limitless varieties, with limitless sub-species.

Quotes from the reference given above the picture (taken from its PDF):

"many taxa... produce viable, fertile hybrids... We have produced intergeneric hybrids of Lake Victoria cichlids (Pundamilia x Platytaeniodus) that have not shown any evidence of loss of viability or fertility up to the 5th generation."
"The evidence is clear for everybody to see, but 'what the heck', RBH don’t have time to go on deeper on this, right? However RBH has more than enough and sufficient time not only to flood all the Internet but also to bash down the related works of Bryan Leonard (sorry but that's not fair)... And all this "in the name of Darwin" and supporting his evolutionary speculations at the macrolevel, right?"

So, RBH took a littke bit of time, just a little, then answering that:

Gee, sure looks like speciation to these folks, and also to these folks.
So, I thanked him for the examples, and then I wrote:

"Again, I don't want to be contentious with you, I just want to study and to leave the evidence for everybody to see."

"The fact of the articles that RBH is linking here is 'subspeciation' or the origin of new varieties, never the origin of 'new species'; for example, from the first link that you present:

"... mbuna will hybridize ... (McElroy, D. M. & Kornfield, I. (1993) Copeia 1993, 933-945)... We cannot rule out a role for hybridization..." [Phylogeny of a rapidly evolving clade: The cichlid fishes of Lake Malawi, East Africa. R. C. Albertson, J. A. Markert, P. D. Danley, and T. D. Kocherdagger PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 9, 5107-5110, April 27, 1999]
"That's precisely the key of my studies to demonstrate that there is genetic compatibility, that the offspring produced is fertile, which will help us in the engineering of new varieties. Again, those cichlids are not different 'species' but different varieties within the same organism."

"And from RBH's second link:

"We first estimated the effective number of genetic factors controlling differences in the cichlid head through a comprehensive morphological assessment of two Lake Malawi cichlid species and their F1 and F2 hybrid progeny."
"If those two morphologically different cichlids are producing F1 and F2 generations, that means that their offspring is fertile, which again indicates their genetic compatibility. Those again, are just varieties within the same organism."

Even if today thousands of varieties of organisms are systematically misclassified as if being of different 'species', or even different 'genus' (like the above example with fertile cichlids produced by Pundamilia x Platytaeniodus in Africa) the future recognition of their reproductive compatibility will resolve such deliberate blindness promoted today by that rampant Darwinism in biological sciences.

To see more cichlid pictures, click here.

Concluding, again: Those Cichlids are "subspecies" but not "new species", which is the false and presumed claim of an evolutionary bankrupt 'speciation' = 'macroevolution'.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

My last comments on the Laupala cricket variation

Earlier I presented here and at ARN an UPDATE on the Laupala cricket variation. However, at ARN and for a second time Myrmecos ( was trying to derail the topic that he himself started. Here, I am going to write my last comments on that issue:

More excerpts of the 2006 article on Laupala demonstrating the resulting fertile offspring or F2:
Matings between L. paranigra and L. kohalensis result in viable and fertile offspring, and the second generation of hybrids (F2) provide a genetic and phenotypic mosaic of parental types
And the comment of the director of the Laupala studies:
"acoustic variants can interbreed and hybridize" [Kerry L. Shaw (broken)]
Then we read in the supplementary material (in DOC) from their Nature article:
"Due to a lack of resolution, the species L. hapapa, L. oahuensis, and L. pacifica were considered a single species..."
That statmenet, together with the one we quoted before [from their 2006 paper(broken)]:
“In close-range encounters, aspects of chemical signaling may be important to mate recognition within species and may further reduce the probability of interbreeding among divergent lineages. The nature and strength of this barrier is yet unknown.”
That's the real deal, compatible organisms producing compatible varieties or well defined lineages within their compatible group!

Let's see which other organism the authors include in their attempt to justify their speculations (Myrmecos, it is not 'the fruit flies', which are the ones that you are trying to sneak in the Laupala topic), my comments in brackets '[ ]':
"The highest speciation rate [among Laupala]is exceeded only by that of the rapidly speciating African cichlid fish... African cichlid fish exemplify this process,with sister species differing primarily in male coloration, a secondary sexual trait. From this pattern, it has been argued that the spectacular diversification in African cichlid fish is driven by sexual selection..."
The cichlid fishes are also able to interbreed producing fertile offspring, being just varieties as well (not so different than the human or the dog diversity.) Previously, they wrote that:
"[Laupala] Females prefer pulse rates of their own species, so divergence in male song reduces the chances of interbreeding between species..."
Then, in a separate paragraph they wrote confirming again the speculative nature of their original paper (clucked by Myrmecos at ARN, and clucked also by Nature and by Science, so, don't worry Myrmecos, you are in 'good' evolutionary company):]
"Whether sexual selection has promoted the diversification in song in Laupala remains to be proved [which happened to be wrong according to their most recent study on the 'nearby' L. paranigra and L. kohalensis linked above]"
L. paranigra and L. kohalensis are just two different varieties of cricket, not two different 'species.'

Yesterday, I wrote at ARN to Myrmecos,

You diverted again the topic!

Next is the absurd graphic that we are talking about here, in this post that you yourself started [with such an erroneous title that even Leonard didn't liked it (smile)]:
Here, in red rectangles I have emphasized the three VARIETIES of crickets mentioned by the authors as if being members of distant and different 'species'. First, excerpts from that original and speculatively wrong article published by Nature:

"... speciation on the actively growing and youngest island, Hawaii, seems to be in progress, as diversity in L. cerasina was probably masked by sampling a single population per species. Populations of L. cerasina are acoustically diverse, and more intensive analysis using AFLPs reveals several distinct genetic groups that correspond to acoustic and geographical variations. We conclude that speciation on Hawaii Island is both explosive and ongoing."
My comment: Here they are talking of variation WITHIN Laupala cerasina!!! So, we must correct their inflated claims by declaring that "We conclude that COMPATIBLE VARIATION on Hawaii Island is both explosive and ongoing" [!!!]

Then we read the next:
"L. cerasina and L. kohalensis are, in comparison [to corals], more distantly related. They are hypothesized to be members of different major lineages of Laupala, perhaps diverging as many as 5 million years ago..."
My comment was that 'speciationists' can speculate ('calculating speculations') their multiple and useless times of ‘divergence’ [as in such and completely useless graphic that I criticize here, of which even Science found useful only as an ideological "promo" of its wrongly-focused and biased article on "evo'nactio" (smile), already linked before, with its rebuke], just to find out that such organisms are indeed compatible and producing a vigorous and fertile offspring!

Then, the third and most recent quote:

"...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."
My comment: After the failure to demonstrate that the male's song is a factor of 'speciation' (which when properly considered is just variation within compatible organisms), the authors wrote in their most recent paper (already quoted) that it may be rather the animal chemistry what make them choose 'their likes' rather than 'their less-likes'.

Replace this absurd graphic with one portraying the human variation and you will see the absurdity within the complete field of 'speciation' and, by 'natural linkage', you will be able to see the complete absurdity within the biased 'evolutionary' realm, kingdom, dominion or establishment (anything you may want to call it, with the EXCEPTION of calling it 'sound science'.)

And related to what Gould wrote (posted by Leonard), the modern failure to justify any 'speciational' event beyond the realm of compatible organisms may render as well Gould's quote, to better reflect reality (something impossible within the current and 'totalitarian naturalistic' dominion of Darwin's views, in disregard of whatever 'new 'naturalistically' driven labels' may emerge...).

So, insted of what Gould wrote:
"Without geographic isolation, favorable variants will not accumulate in local populations, for breeding with parental forms is a remarkably efficient way to blur and dilute any change that might otherwise become substantial enough to constitute a new species."
Please, replace that end with the next statement and you will have a most accurate picture that even flows more 'naturally' (smile) with Gould's statement on "favorable variants": "...any change that might otherwise become substantial enough to constitute a new VARIETY"

The complete evolutionary field of speciation is biased by the pretense of attempting to justify Darwin’s “origin of species”. Those crickets and the other organisms studied by ‘speciationists’ (finches, cichlids, threespine fishes, etc…) are not diverging ‘species’, but just genetically compatible varieties.

So, the fraud of 'speciation' is its overselling (of such natural variation) as a macroevolutionary ‘proof’, when indeed it is just microevolution in action; hence, compatible variation.

Myrmecos, you haven’t answered to my 01/28/05 question (see above):
If you were a journal editor or a grant provider, are you willing to finance/publish a research paper based only on Intelligent Design premises…?
Evidently, your answer must be a flat NO. However, frequently you are asking for the ‘ID evidence’, for ID research and its results, but it seems that no ID evidence may be allowed by you.

Also, you haven’t answered to the next question:
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 (which is indeed the resulting evidence)?
In that way, as mturner declared, all the current and published 'evidence' provided by 'speciationists' does not support at all any Darwinian or neo-Darwinan scenario for the "origin of species".

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?

Other links related to this posting:

Chronicles for The Laupala Cricket Variation

From: Chronicles for The Laupala Cricket Variation

The point is that all studies on “speciation” can be easily replaced by the word variation, reducing the evolutionary deusion of ‘the origin of species’ to the facts of variation between compatible organisms.

Concluding: Genetic compatibility and a fertile offspring are the two key factors to identify varieties and to produce new biodiversity.

To go one step further than the current evolutionary ‘tar-pit’ of biology, we need to inject new views. ID offers those needed and renewed views and those new methods for a real revolution in biology.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Intelligent Design Discovered in Flies and in the Bees Flying Code

Tethered fly from the front. Credit: Michael Dickinson and Tom Irving (from:

Next we will see three examples on how to use the wonderful designs present in nature for our own robotics and medical study. We, a smaller engineer learning from the biggest engineer! Isn’t that what Intelligent Design with your support will be doing? ID should be making a free and most friendly environment for development and progress than the current one!
The first story, by Michael Schirber who posted on 27 January, 2005 The Flight of the Fly where he wrote: "... their [the Insects] amazing ability to turn their powerful flight muscles on and off so quickly,

"For an insect, it is too difficult to have an electrical signal go from the brain to the muscle 200 times per second," says Tom Irving of the Illinois Institute of Technology.
Instead – for many insects – the wing-moving muscles, which are located in the thorax, operate by something called stretch activation, wherein one set of muscles automatically fires when the contraction of the opposing muscle group causes it to stretch.
This internal feedback loop goes on without any nerve impulses from the brain."

"A fly, it turns out, will adjust the frequency of its wing beats to match what it believes to be its forward motion. By timing the opening of their shutter with the fly’s frequency, the researchers were able to record eight separate time steps of a wing beat. (You can see the X-ray movie in mpg, mov, or wmv format.)

"We were actually seeing the movement of the molecules in a cycle," Irving said.
The data indicate previously unsuspected interactions of various proteins as the muscles stretch and contract. The implications may go beyond insect flight.

"We might look for this mechanism in heart muscles," Irving said. "It opens up new questions for us."
Irving is quick to point out that the heart will not beat without a signal from the brain, but the processes in the fly’s muscles could play some part in how heart muscles work. If so, it may be possible to genetically engineer fruit flies to mimic some kinds of heart problems.

The second story, also by Michael Schirber who posted on 27 May 2005 Dancing Bees Speak in Code
Bee with tracking device attached. Credit: BBSRC/Rothamsted Research.

"Bees outfitted with tracking devices responded to the wiggling of one of their fellow foragers, who had just returned to the hive from some newfound bee vittles. The dance... is performed on one of the honeycomb walls..."

"The central element of the choreography is a shimmy, or waggle, along a straight line. For emphasis, the bee repeats this move several times by circling around in a figure-8 pattern. The angle that the shimmy makes in relation to an imaginary vertical line is the direction to the food source with respect to the sun. For example, a waggle dance pointing towards 3 o’clock is bee talk for: "Hey, there’s food 90 degrees to the right of the Sun."

"This solar compass in honeybees was originally observed in the 1960s by the Nobel Prize winner Karl von Frisch. Later, it was noticed that the number of waggles in one figure-8 corresponds to the distance to the meal. These remarkable relations have been supported by other experiments, including one in which a mechanical bee danced for the hive and the real bees responded."
"The dance isn’t a trivial demonstration, but an abstract code," says J. R. Riley of Rothamsted Research, UK.
"This is the most definitive proof that recruited bees read the waggle dance, since the transplanted bees [another experiment described in that article] chose the foretold trajectory without any of the possible other cues – odors (bees have a strong sense of smell), landscape, other bees – that might exist along the true hive-to-feeder route."

Then we have the third story, which wisely MSNBC subtitled as:

Robotic wings mimic insects’ rapid beat and could inspire new designs
"In the last 10 years, flight biologists have gained a remarkable amount of understanding by shifting to experiments with robots that are capable of flapping wings with the same freedom as the animals." [Douglas Altshuler, a researcher at California Institute of Technology]
"The scientists analyzed pictures from hours of filming bees and mimicked the movements using robots with sensors for measuring forces. Turns out bee flight mechanisms are more exotic than thought."
"The honeybees have a rapid wing beat… In contrast to the fruit fly that has one eightieth the body size and flaps its wings 200 times each second, the much larger honeybee flaps its wings 230 times every second." [Altshuler]
"This was a surprise because as insects get smaller, their aerodynamic performance decreases and to compensate, they tend to flap their wings faster."

"In order to understand how bees carry such heavy cargo, the researchers forced the bees to fly in a small chamber filled with a mixture of oxygen and helium that is less dense than regular air. This required the bees to work harder to stay aloft and gave the scientists a chance to observe their compensation mechanisms for the additional toil. The bees made up for the extra work by stretching out their wing stroke amplitude but did not adjust wingbeat frequency."
"They work like racing cars," Altshuler said. "Racing cars can reach higher revolutions per minute but enable the driver to go faster in higher gear… "And this was just for hovering," Altshuler said of the bees. "They also have to transfer pollen and nectar and carry large loads, sometimes as much as their body mass, for the rest of the colony."
The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place and carry loads for many purposes such as disaster surveillance after earthquakes and tsunamis.
Douglas Altshuler (from:

All of that is so nice... until carelessly Douglas Altshuler declared without any basis that "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. So, Altshuler, you better stick to the facts and keep your mouth shut, given the fact that you lack of basis for your bashing claims!

Monday, January 16, 2006

The Laupala Cricket Variation

Last year, an Insect Systematist posted at ARN a Brief Communication’s title and abstract published by Nature purported to provide evidence of “Rapid speciation: observations match Darwinian theory

The brief in question is related to crickets:

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, and Supplementary Info. [broken link]

Even the subtitle indicates that such publication was a “likely” speculation, proven to be wrong by their current 2006 paper!

In the original one page long brief we can read that:

"Females prefer pulse rates of their own species [Mendelson, T. C. & Shaw, K. L. Genetica 116, 301–310 (2002), see below], so divergence in male song reduces the chances of interbreeding between species."

Personal mating preferences between what Mendelson & Shaw considers as different ‘species’ was just a theoretical behavioral estimate of the animals, those crickets that we consider as varieties within the same compatible organism.

Because those crickets are able to interbreed in the lab producing fertile offspring, those crickets are not an example of ‘speciation’ but of variation.

Even in their original 2005 Nature's brief it does not says that the interbreeding between them is impossible, the different song-preference, it is theorized, only may be reducing the “ability of interbreeding between divergent populations.” However, their recent publication has demonstrated that such is not the case:

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

“We predicted that females would exhibit a shorter latency to mating with hybrid males whose pulse rates were more similar to the conspecific pulse rate of the female. However, neither hybrid by L. paranigra nor hybrid by L. kohalensis pairings showed significant differences in latency to mating among females mating with the slower singer, the faster singer, or both...
So, we read:

"...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. When females were presented with male hybrids exhibiting a wide range of pulse rates, no relationship was detected between male pulse rate and either the frequency of, or latency to, mating. Rather, females of both species accepted males with pulse rates several standard deviations outside their respective conspecific ranges, indicating broad female preference functions for pulse rates at close range. Therefore, we are unable to reject the null hypothesis that the pulse rate of male “courtship” song has no effect on behavioral barriers in close-range interactions.”

“The two species do not overlap geographically, nor does available evidence suggest a cost to hybridization (i.e., a reduction in hybrid fitness).”
Next, more excerpts of their 2006 article demonstrating the resulting fertile offspring or F2:

Matings between L. paranigra and L. kohalensis result in viable and fertile offspring, and the second generation of hybrids (F2) provide a genetic and phenotypic mosaic of parental types. Thus, although individual males are characterized by a particular pulse rate, the population of F2 males exhibited a broad range of pulse rates against a recombined genetic and phenotypic background... Males were second-generation hybrids resulting from a L. kohalensis grand-dam and L. paranigra grand-sire, and several F1 intercross parents.”
After the failure to demonstrate that the male's song is a factor of 'speciation' (which when properly considered is just variation within compatible organisms), the authors wrote in their most recent paper:
“In close-range encounters, aspects of chemical signaling may be important to mate recognition within species and may further reduce the probability of interbreeding among divergent lineages. The nature and strength of this barrier is yet unknown.”

“Results of our study demonstrate that while strong behavioral barriers exist between these two species, variation in the pulse rate of male calling song did not predict female mate choice at close range. These results suggest a more complex architecture to mate recognition in Laupala than previously hypothesized” [from the Abstract]
As well as their: Hybrid mate choice trials

Females did not exhibit a preference for either slower or faster hybrid pulse rates... As with mate choice, latency to mating was not correlated with hybrid male pulse rate.”
Next is the way in which Y.M. Parsons (from La Trobe University, Australia) presents those same crickets in the next link:

The Hawaiian cricket, Laupala [broken link]
"Laupala (Trigonidiinae, Gryllidae) are small flightless crickets found on all the high islands of the Hawaiian archipelago. An conspicuous feature of Laupala is the diverse variation in male courting song between species. The 37 species within the genus are morphologically similar but can be distinguished on the basis of pulse rate differences in the male song..."
Again, those 37 different ‘species’ are only 37 varieties of genetically compatible crickets that are able to produce fertile offspring!

I posted at ARN that “I can see again and again that varieties are deliberately and conveniently confounded with species...”

"If two different animals can interbreed producing fertile offspring, they are just varieties, no matter if science classifies them as different species or even genera (as the living fertile example of the product of a false killer "whale" x dolphin)"
We can conclude that there are at least more than 150 varieties (mislabeled different ‘species’) produced from a single pair of cricket genetic colonizers that arrived to Hawaii. Next you can see a picture of a semi-transparent Cave-dweller Hawaiian Cricket, one of the very few "non-gross-me-out" cricket pictures (smile):

[photo taken by Bill Mull]

Note: However, with all of this evidence demonstrating that variation within compatible animals is what is going on in nature, the journal Science was erratic enough to include the very same article of 2005 (presented at the beginning of this posting), proven in 2006 to be a living example of variation within compatible and fertile offspring producers (F2 crickets), but not of 'speciation', however Science presented it as:

Breakthrough of the year: Evolution in Action. By Elizabeth Culotta and Elizabeth Pennisi. Science 23 December 2005: 310(5756)1878-79.

However, earlier both Andrew Rowell, and Casey Luskin debunked those calculated deceptions published in Science. The right title of that promotional published by Science must be Microevolution In Action. While I presented The Fraud of Evolution: Variation sold as Speciation.

Update (Jan 20):The response to the above mentioned Insect Systematist can be read at: Chronicles for The Laupala Cricket Variation.

Some of the other broken links rescued:

This was my preliminary compilation of compatible organisms:
And this is a compilation of references:
The inspiring article:
Additional compatibilities explored in my blogs are:
[I noticed that somebody copied my previous link information and posted it in the Wikipedia:]

Compatible Mates Interbreed Producing Fertile Offspring


Etc..., etc...

Saturday, January 14, 2006

A Hero For The Ages

Imagine the night sky in a place far from the city, where you can recognize each visible star by its most ancestral group or constellation...

On pursuing The Constellations and Their Intelligent Design we can follow the clear redeeming pattern (names above the constellation's figures):





Here, the constellations representing a man are holding in their hands evidences of their victory: Orion, Ophiuchus and Hercules. All of them pointing to the same Hero For The Ages: Our Christ Jesus! That's The Witness of the Stars!

Friday, January 13, 2006

Back to Normal: Natural Reverse Mutations

Yesterday we saw Robert E. Pruitt's discovery of how plants are able to Mend their Own Inherited Faulty DNA, now we will gather some links related to the well known natural reversal to normal, the "reverse mutations":

Thomas Hunt Morgan et al declared (Ref. 1, pp. 169-170): "we know that mutations and even "reverse" mutations actually occur". Since then, others have done additional discoveries in humans on this novel area of prospective medicine (2). Those examples of natural "reverse mutations" (3-5) are leading to the discovery of possible artificial treatments (6-8). And well, the precise mechanisms of such mutational reversion are still been studied (9-10). Other possibility is the use of palindromes in the attachment of two different genetic modules for the engineering of terapeutic proteins.


1. Morgan TH, Sturtevant AH, Muller HJ & Bridges CB (1915). Multiple Allelomorphs. In: (same Authors), The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. Henry Holt and Company. New York.

2. Hirschhorn R (2003) In vivo reversion to normal of inherited mutations in humans. J. Med. Genet. 40: 721-728.

3. Wahn V, Stephan V, Hirschhorn R. Reverse mutations-- spontaneous amelioration or cure of inherited disorders? Eur J Pediatr. 1998 Aug;157(8):613-7.
"Some recent publications indicate that inherited disorders can ameliorate or possibly disappear if mutations responsible for the disease revert to normal. This review tries to summarize our current knowledge about reverse mutations as this information may be of special interest for attempts at somatic gene therapy."

4. Gross M, Hanenberg H, Lobitz S, Friedl R, Herterich S, Dietrich R, Gruhn B, Schindler D & Hoehn H (2002) Reverse mosaicism in Fanconi anaemia: natural gene therapy via molecular self-correction. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 98: 126–35.

5. Brown WT, Houck GE Jr, Ding X, Zhong N, Nolin S, Glicksman A, Dobkin C, Jenkins EC. Reverse mutations in the fragile X syndrome. Am J Med Genet. 1996 Aug 9;64(2):287-92.
"inherited a fragile X chromosome from their premutation carrier mothers, and yet had normal size FMR1 repeat alleles... Our results indicate that women identified to be carriers by linkage should be retested by direct DNA analysis."

6. Hacein-Bey-Abina S, Le Deist F, Carlier F, Bouneaud C, Hue C, De Villartay JP, Thrasher AJ, Wulffraat N, Sorensen R, Dupuis-Girod S, Fischer A, Davies EG, Kuis W, Leiva L & Cavazzana-Calvo M (2002) Sustained correction of X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency by ex vivo gene therapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 346: 1185-93.

7. Gaspar HB, Parsley KL, Howe S, King D, Gilmour KC, Sinclair J, Brouns G, Schmidt M, Von Kalle C, Barington T, Jakobsen MA, Christensen HO, Al Ghonaium A, White HN, Smith JL, Levinsky RJ, Ali RR, Kinnon C & Thrasher AJ (2004) Gene therapy of X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency by use of a pseudotyped gammaretroviral vector. Lancet 364: 2181-7.

8. O. Adjali, G. Marodon, M. Steinberg, C. Mongellaz, V. Thomas-Vaslin, C. Jacquet, N. Taylor, and D. Klatzmann. In vivo correction of ZAP-70 immunodeficiency by intrathymic gene transfer. J. Clin. Invest., August 1, 2005; 115(8): 2287 - 2295.

9. Bultman SJ, Klebig ML, Michaud EJ, Sweet HO, Davisson MT, Woychik RP. Molecular analysis of reverse mutations from nonagouti (a) to black-and-tan (a(t)) and white-bellied agouti (Aw) reveals alternative forms of agouti transcripts. Genes Dev. 1994 Feb 15;8(4):481-90.
"...we propose that reverse mutations occur by excision of inserted sequences in a through homologous recombination..."

10. English JC, Roser KS, Mecchi M. Conversion of tris(8-quinolinolato-N1, O8) aluminum to 8-hydroxyquinoline and activity in bacterial reverse mutation assays. Mutat Res. 2005 Apr 4;582(1-2):95-104.



These are additional findings that demonstrate patterns and non-randomness in such molecular events. Similar findings for the human polymorphisms, in the future will help to therapeutically reverse hereditary diseases.

Earlier, I reported at ARN some other examples in microbes:

"...under leucine starvation conditions, leu+ revertants accumulated as a function of time; leu- to leu+ reverse mutation rates and frequencies were higher than those under non starvation conditions."

"...reverse mutations could occur continuously in a time-dependent manner."

"...reverse mutation under leucine starvation was cell density dependent and growth-dependent."

Taken from an Online Journal: Jianling Jin, Peiji Gao and Yumin Mao. Occurrence of leu+ revertants under starvation cultures in Escherichia coli is growth-dependent. BMC Genetics 2002, 3:6.

And related to the non-randomness, even in mutations (that as we have seen here, can and do revert!):

"Base substitutions and single-base frameshifts, two major classes of spontaneous mutations, occur non-randomly throughout the genome."

Ref.: Hisaji Maki. Origins of Spontaneous Mutations: Specificity and Directionality of Base-Substitution, Frameshift, and Sequence-Substitution Mutageneses. Annual Review of Genetics Vol. 36: 279-303 (Volume publication date December 2002.)

See also:

"...directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation... The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians."

Ref.: Bernhard, R. 1967. Heresy in the halls of biology: mathematicians question Darwinism. Sci. Res. (New York) 2:59-66.

And also:

"... background mutations are sequence directed and not random in the sense that they occur in bases made vulnerable by virtue of their particular location within specific DNA sequences, such as tandem repeats, or the unpaired and mispaired bases of stem-loop structures"

Taken from: Barbara E. Wright. A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution. Journal of Bacteriology, June 2000, p. 2993-3001, Vol. 182, No. 11.

Again, as in my entry for yesterday, this facts point to the robust Stability of living organisms, designed to endure and to preserve their specified patterns, the integrity of their particular 'kinds' (Heb. Min, Gk. Genos.)

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Mending Faulty Genes

Plants Mend their Own Faulty DNA, by Apoorva Mandavilli
"Plants can correct defective genes inherited from their parents by reverting to an ancestral gene sequence."

"The parent generation had a mutant version of a gene dubbed hothead, which causes the plants to have fused flowers. Even when each parent carriet two mutant versions of the gene, 10 percent of the next generation had normal flowers... these plants had somehow retrieved ancestral code that allowed them to repair the mutant gene."

"Although the discovery was made in plants, [Robert] Pruitt suspects that animals, including humans, might also use this method to correct faulty genes."

"There's another way that genetic information can be inherited, which we've been blissfully unaware of the last 100 years or so," Pruitt says. "To me that just boggles the mind. Then you really start to wonder what else is out there"

My Comment
: This finding, together with the studies in mutations' reversal indicates that instead of a darwinian evolving of organisms, life tends to stability (Stasis), to preserve and to perpetuate their given patterns.

Related Links:

Robert E. Pruitt's Lab

Science 25 March 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5717, pp. 1852 - 1853
News of the Week. GENETICS: Talking About a Revolution: Hidden RNA May Fix Mutant Genes, by Elizabeth Pennisi

Research News: Plant Inherits Repaired Gene
Listen to this story...
Talk of the Nation, March 25, 2005 · Researchers report finding that some plants may have a hidden mechanism for repairing damaged genetic material -- even when the plant received two copies of the damaged gene.
Guest: Robert E. Pruitt, associate professor of plant molecular genetics, Purdue University.

Heresy: Genetic 'memory'.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Intelligent Design in 'Achilles', a Song by Atom

The Meaning of Messiah
... winner of the Solo Artist of 2005

"We strike Achilles at his heel
We strike the modern man like Gregor Mendel,
meddling with his alleles
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 declared:
"I am down for the ID community"
Here we extend our congratulations to Atom!

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

The Dolphin Variation

I prepared the next slide for my students as well as the next information (click on the picture, even twice, to enlarge it):

Taken from; (Thanks to for saving it!)

Interbreeding between Dolphin and false killer whale: There has been one case of a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) producing a fertile female hybrid that has been called a wholphin. She, the offspring, went on to breed with a dolphin and produced a daughter in the Hawaii's Sea Life Park. Since the offspring in this case is fertile, these two 'genera' are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species

Note: Other members in the group (12 living 'genera') are much more alike than the two that produced this offspring in Hawaii.

MacLeod declared: " the order Cetacea, there appears to be few, if any, postcopulatory species isolating mechanisms as successful hybridization between many species, genera, and even sub-families have been recorded."
MacLeod, C. D. 2000. Species Recognition as a Possible Function for Variations in Position and Shape of the Sexually Dimorphic Tusks of Mesoplodon Whales. Evolution, 54(6):2171-3

Fraser, F. C. 1940. Three anomalous dolphins from Blacksod Bay, Ireland. Proc. R. Irish Acad. 45(B):413-455.
Nishiwaki, M., and T. Tobayama. 1982. Morphological study on the hybrid between Tursiops and Pseudorca. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. Tokyo 34:109-121.
Reyes, J. C. 1996. A possible case of hybridisation in wild dolphins. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 12:301-307.

A great website that presents the three, dad, mom and daughter jumping at the same time to allow us to compare their size differences: In my article submitted to ISCID, "Intelligent Design to Generate Biodiversity", I answered to the excellent comments posted by Stuart Harris and by Jerry D. Bauer:

The first practical and elementary genetic formula to be used here is:


(3) P1 + P2 = F1 Fertile


P1 and P2 are just varieties of the same kind or 'genos' (as we read in the book of Genesis) of organism, no matter how morphologically different they may appear.

This will be further illustrated with this dolphin striking example, also mentioned in my article:


(4) Pseudorca crassidens + Tursiops truncatus = F1 Fertile


Pseudorca crassidens = male false killer whale (14-foot, 2,000-pound)

Tursiops truncatus = female Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (6-foot, 400-pound)

F1 Fertile = a fertile female called a 'Wholpin', that itself has been able to conceive in three different occasions, her first calf lived for 9 years, the second died when born and this third one [its offspring], a female, a putative product of this F1 female interbreeding with a 8-foot long Atlantic bottlenose male dolphin was born last December 2004.


Pseudorca crassidens and Tursiops truncatus are just varieties of the same kind or 'baramin' (according to current nomenclature) of organism, not a different 'genus' [or as the Bible presents it to us, the same and compatible 'genus', not an 'evolving', different and incompatible, as gathered by using the uncertain scientific nomenclature of (misclassifying them as) 'genus'], as it is wrongfully and currently held by evolutionary scientists.

No matter how morphologically different they may appear and in disregard of the common names given to the involved animals (false killer whale, dolphin, wholphin), these are just varieties of dolphins!

Still, you won't read this full successful F1 (Pseudorca x Tursiops) x Tursiops interbreeding story in indexed journals, at least not yet...

Pro Darwinians will want to continue the winnow game by watering down this great example of variation by saying that this only happened once and 'in captivity', but that this 'does not happen normally in the wild'. The fact is that they, these P1 and P2, have a 'genetic compatibility', as Stuart Harris declared, no matter their 'psychological mating preferences', as Goldschmidt may have said it.

This 'psychological mating preferences' is an aspect overemphasized in the current neo-Darwinian 'mind-game' of 'divide', in the darwinist's attempt to 'prove' a fallacy, they want to convince everybody that new 'species' are emerging all the time, when what we really see all the time is just varieties within the same kinds (genetic compatible groups).

The sheer fact is that those misnamed varieties of dolphins can interbreed producing fertile offspring!

And like this, I have seen that the misclassification of varieties as if pertaining to different species or worse, to different genus, like in the example provided here, can reach the hundreds of thousands!

But, oh well, that's not important right now for the evolutionists, as far as they keep high the public ignorance in regards to this topic, in their attempt to keep promoting their sterile 'speciation' fallacy...

While evolutionists now try to violently stop alternatives to their views, they think that on doing so their failed evolutionary multi-theories may still 'afloat'. But thanks God that today we have 'the Internets' (smile).

A related example can be seen in the HybriDatabase (confirming MacLeod's statement , substantiated by Fraser, by Nishiwaki and Tobayama, and by Reyes, etc.):

Hyb. # 1693. Grampus griseus x Tursiops truncatus. Intermediate characters suggest natural hybridization [Gray AP 1972]

This last one found using the:

Concluding: Then, by using this Intelligent Design perspective, we can predict also that the real 'killer whale' is just the ‘Saint Bernard’ of the dolphins, and that is able also to interbreed producing fertile offspring with the rest of its genetically compatible 'mates', being them the rest of the real varieties of dolphins!

Update: After posting this example at ARN, I received a note from the original webmaster that took and posted those amazing pictures, linked here:

The photos were actually provided by Sea Life Park for the Waimanalo News (now defunct) that i was helping to get online many years ago.
You take care.
You may also want to read The Fraud of Evolution: Variation sold as Speciation as well as Microevolution In Action.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

The Intelligent Design of Nick Anderson's Cartoons...

...consists on he hiding the names of his two sons (Colton and Travis) in all his cartoons.

In the original, you can see the name of Travis in Anderson's back and at the bottom left of the mirror's frame, while 'Colton' is in Anderson's tie and at the top of the mirror's frame (here highlighted in red).

In the Houston Chronicle of today it says that he is joining its Editorial Cartoon:

Pulitzer winner joins Chronicle

If you think that he really looks like the cartoon of himself (posted here side by side), in the same way he may be distorting what his imagination dictates related to other issues... (smile):

This one he Published On 2005-11-29: "Teach both sides! Teach intelligent design! Intelligent design is science!"

And in this other he represented the Roman Clergy supporting Evolution.

Next, one Anderson's awarded Cartoon:

Other of his cartoons related to the wiretap spying on America:

And a couple more in black and white: