“Whoever is lead to believe that species are mutable, will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction, for only thus can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed, be removed.”
Charles Darwin,
Richard Dawkin's 1986 bestseller
So what-ch-you know about Go ahead
And ask a question and
Try bein’ passive aggressive or try smashin’ heads in
And see which tactic brings your plans to fruition
And if you have an explanation in mind, then you’re
Wastin’ your time, ‘cause the best
It takes a certain base kind of
To explain away nature with
But the truth shall set you free
From those useless , beliefs
In a , and that Edenic myth
‘Cause their is showin’ some
Take it from this bald-headed non-celibate monk
With the lyrical equivalent of an
It’s time to elevate your mind-state
And
The weak and the strong, who got it goin’ on?
We lived in the dark for so long
The weak and the strong, Darwin got it goin’ on
Image courtesy of Kapungo via Flickr (Creative Commons)
“The view which most naturalists entertainnamely that each species has been independently created, is erroneous.”
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Okay, it’s time to reveal my identity
I’m the manifestation of
Of centuries of sexual selection, best believe
I’m the
Of generations of competitive pressure genetically
But don’t get upset, ‘cause
You and I will find a eventually
If we rewind geological time regressively
And I could say the same for this
And this and this and this sesame seed
And if you still disbelieve in what your
Then I could even use this rhyme as a remedy
‘Cause there’s so much in the styles in this industry
And when the people listening
Decide what they’re into and what really isn’t interesting
Hibiscus flower. Courtesy of Muhammad Mahdi Karim via Wikimedia Commons
You could like Timberlake on a Timberland beat
Or go extinct like and N’Sync
It’s survival of the fittest, but
It changes from place to place and from winter to spring
But the real question in this social-scientific
Is , whether we
From our predecessors, or
But then we’re talkin’ and that’s a different thing
Richard Dawkins
The weak and the strong, who got it goin’ on?
We lived in the dark for so long
The weak and the strong, Darwin got it goin’ on
Creationism is dead wrong
The weak and the strong, who got it goin’ on?
The weak and the strong, Darwin got it goin’ on
Creationism is erroneous
I hear some people complain, like “I don’t wanna be an ape!
I never came from monkey DNA!
I believe God made me in a day – Jesus saves!”
Yeah, he’s great, but stop bein’ afraid
To use the reason “he” gave you to let and find some
A Blotched Blue-Tongued Skink, Tiliqua nigrolutea, basking on open sandy ground. Image courtesy of Benjamint444 via Wikimedia Commons
I think it’s time for y’all to let your minds evolve
And listen to a different kind of
The kind that comes from pine trees and not Pinesol
I’m talkin’ about the
Wondering at the infinite depth of divine thought
And realizing that scripture can never define God
‘Cause if there is a personal God,
So why would he bother designing an albatross
Especially when natural selection does such an excellent job
Just by
I say banish
If he can’t help us understand the simplest facts
I want a relaxed God of infinite naps
We’ll be all right without him, just give us a chance
The weak and the strong, who got it goin’ on
We lived in the dark for so long
The weak and the strong, Darwin got it goin’ on
Creationism is dead wrong
Note: Darwin first published his theory in 1859, and the “load of prejudice” he originally referred to is still widespread. To find out more click
here.
Note: The heart of Darwin’s theory is “
Natural Selection,” the notion that differences among individuals will lead to change at the population level as some variations are favored over others in the struggle for existence. Why not experience natural selection first hand with
this game?
Natural Selection is by definition an open-ended process with no pre-conceived target or conclusion.
Richard Dawkins coined the phrase “
The Blind WatchMaker”” to describe Natural Selection in his book of the same name, as a response to the creationist charge that design always requires a “designer”.
Objections to evolution are usually based on a refusal to consider either the number of mutations and variations involved in the process, or the amount of time it takes for change to occur, from tens to thousands to billions of years.
“Intelligent Design” is a pseudo-scientific front for Creationism, the notion that evolution either didn’t happen or is guided by divine oversight. Neither belief is supported by a jot of scientific evidence.
The National Centre for Science Education is a good place to start if you want to find out more.
A superstition is a notion or belief not based on reason or knowledge. It includes such things as fear of the number 13, walking under ladders and the belief that horseshoes are ‘lucky’
As opposed to a “literal Adam and Eve” the theory of evolution offers
“Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosome Adam” as ways of conceiving of our ancestry. These are the last female and the last male ancestor of all living human beings, respectively.
Note: Darwin was the first to show how the “Tree of Life” connects all living things, from humans to ferns to mushrooms. To explore the Tree of Life go to the
Wellcome Trust’s interactive feature Note: “
Genetic Drift” is a form of random or non-directional evolutionary change, different from Natural Selection which is non-random and responsive to the environment.
The elephant’s trunk is one example of an organ that was enlarged and made versatile by evolution. Another example is the human brain.
Recent genetic evidence has shown that humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are much more closely related than any of us are to the other great apes such as gorillas and orangutans, which prompted Jared Diamond to describe humans as “The Third Chimpanzee.” You can explore your origins with the
Smithsonian interactive family tree“Dead wrong” in the sense of “incorrect” rather than “immoral”, although a case could also be made for the latter.
“Dead wrong” in the sense of “incorrect” rather than “immoral”, although a case could also be made for the latter.
The first fossilized evidence of sexually reproducing organisms is from eukaryotes of the
Mesoproterozoic period, about 1 to 1.2 billion years ago. Author
Matt Ridley asks
why sex exists in the first place
“Best” in the sense of “Best-suited to the local environment” since “fitness” is always measured in
relative terms.
This is only true up until our most recent common ancestor, of course. Ever since that person lived we have had a different pedigree (everyone except my siblings).
Flowering plants first appeared during the Cretaceous about 140 million years ago
These reptiles first appeared during the Triassic period about 220 million years ago
Well before the dinosaurs, insects lived on earth. They first appeared around 250 million years ago
Tangible evidence for evolution can be found in any natural history museum.
Variation is a necessary precondition for natural selection to occur. Genetic variation is the product of random mutations and gene flow from one area to another.
“Differential survival” or “selection” acts on both genetic and cultural variation.
People may have different opinions about which recording artists “deserve” to thrive, but the billboard charts provide a reliable guide to which ones actually do.
To be fair, Vanilla Ice is not extinct, his fossilized recordings still populate nostalgic 80’s hip-hop playlists, and as an “artist” he has evolved into a new niche hosting home-improvement reality TV shows.
“fitness is a tricky thing”]Since “fitness” is only ever measured in relation to the relevant local environment, there really is no such thing as “absolute fitness.” Some would argue there is also no such thing as “true art.”
There is a legitimate debate as to whether cultural evolution is merely “like” biological evolution (ie “simile”) or whether they are actually the same process operating on different information systems.
“Heredity” is the means by which information is passed from one generation to the next. The unit of heredity in nature is the “gene.” The “unit of heredity” in culture is more difficult to define.
Imitation is one form of “cultural inheritance,” that could lead to natural selection, if the imitation were sufficiently precise, but not so precise as to prevent variation
If there really is such thing as an “original idea” then cultural evolution is probably very different from genetic evolution. Luckily, no such idea has ever been identified.
Richard Dawkins proposed the name “
meme” for the cultural analogue of a “gene,” that is, a unit of culture passed from one mind to another.
Although Dawkins opened the “meme” debate, he has mostly left it to other writers such as Susan Blackmore and Daniel Dennett to develope the idea further, and many “
meme-skeptics” remain.
Evolution is often characterized in terms of “survival” as in “survival of the fittest;” however, it is actually a measure of comparative reproductive success.
Science has changed our world immeasurably, both for good (e.g. the reduction in disease) and bad (e.g. pollution). There is undoubtedly
much more to come!
Science only finds “final results” in so far as all attempts to overturn those results via the scientific method (hypothesis and disconfirmation, reproducible experiments, empirical evidence) end in failure. After a certain number of attempts, scientists tend to treat those results as “final” that have best withstood attempts to overturn them, although further attempts are always welcome. Some examples of “final results” include the theory that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for biological form and function.
A “silent call” is a phone call with no one at the other end of the line, usually initiated by a telemarketer or salesperson
“If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
A somewhat crude way of expressing the fact that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of a personal God, hence “he” can hardly be said to “do” anything of interest.
Each mutation’s costs to survival and reproduction are balanced against its benefits, and the genes that spread are the ones with the greatest
benefit-to-cost ratio in the ledger of “surviving descendents”
“God of the gaps” is the belief that God’s existence is proven by those things that science cannot explain. As many people have pointed out, this argument is full of
holes.
Baba, I am extremely impressed by your lyrical ability combined with your complex understanding of human behavior in relation to evolutionary theory. It is unusual for a person to be so gifted in two so diverse ways, and be able to combine them successfully, if not brilliantly. I had a couple of suggestions for concepts for you to write about but as I listened to your tracks, I was pleased to hear you touch on them! I am a naturalist, and am currently studying marine science and near shore environments. I have often argued that humans in many ways have removed themselves from natural selection but it still manifests itself in ways sociological, psychological, and in everyday behaviors we take for granted. I see more and more parallels in the behavior of marine organisms and humans (some of which do not even possess a brain or anything like one), and am beginning to think we are not as separated from the “animals” as we would like to think. Perhaps your writing has stripped away some of the arrogance of my previous thinking, thank you. “Nothing to believe, something to percieve.” I have evidence of natural selection on my bookshelf, seashells created only a few thousand years apart, but the morphology is diferent basesd on abiotic and biotic factors. Love it! Dont ever stop.
Pingback: Summer in the City | Baba Brinkman
Brilliant. When are you coming to the SF Bay Area?
Citation: “Okay, it’s time to reveal my identity
I’m the manifestation of tens of millions
Of centuries of sexual selection, best believe
I’m the best of the best of the best of the best”
Well, evolution and the survival of the fittest doesn’t mean that any surviving creature is in any way “the best”, unless you mean by this phrase “best adapted to a certain historical situation”. Don’t forget the importance of chances and likelihood, evolution is not a process that’s able to learn. We can merely say: It develops by chance. So of them are higher in certain situations, it’s far from perfection. Don’t get too proud of being actually some kind of top of the evolution, soon life will get over this population called humankind … but please don’t stop rhyming. We need more of this!
I loved this and I would really like to use a version of it in my high school biology class; however, I can float the whole thing until the mention of god is a jerk off or jerking off? I don’t suppose you have a slightly modified version that will only have half the town after after me instead of the entire community burning a cross on my front lawn? Just curious from a mildly religious conservative community of nutty . . . .
Catherine
Catherine, thanks for your comment! Here is my response in blog form: http://rapguidetoevolution.co.uk/concerned-teachers
Pingback: Tennessee Monkey Trials | Baba Brinkman
I applaud your efforts to teach about evolution through music. However, I wonder at some of your word choices. Why is it that you insult people’s belief in God by saying, “‘Cause if there is a personal God, then he’s been jerkin’ off…I say banish God into the gaps…We’ll be all right without him, just give us a chance”? Why in the world would people want to ‘give [you] a chance’ after you’ve insulted their deeply held beliefs?
Also, this sort of commentary forces people into a false choice between God and science, thereby only entrenching people in their views. By not overtly removing God from evolution (by the way, why do evolutionary scientists even discuss religion? cell biologists do not), people can believe God created life to evolve. Why not? Carl Sagan once wrote, “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.” When religious people are not forced to choose between one or the other, they are free to believe in both.
I agree with the line “And realizing that scripture can never define God”. Very true. That people do define God and the genesis/origins of Life by what the Bible and Genesis says is a religious problem, not a scientific one–one that the scientific world cannot solve by trying to get people to reject God or the Bible. That people read the Bible as completely literal, that, too, is a religious problem, not a scientific one, and, again, one that the scientific world cannot solve. Why not be perplexed about people’s rejection of evolution? There is no reason to ‘believe’ in mitosis; it just is. Same goes for evolution. Yet, many people believe that God created life to evolve, perhaps even had a hand in how it happened. Why is that worthy of ridicule? Such beliefs can neither be proven nor disproven.
The parts of the song that focused solely on Darwin’s theory are pretty good, but the numerous times beliefs in God were ridiculed or Creationism mentioned makes this song seem less about the theory of evolution and its processes than it is a song debating religious views as to whether or not God exists. Why include that debate in a song purportedly intended to teach evolution?
Carl Sagan wrote in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, “The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them — the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you’re sensible, you’ll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status.”
Ridiculing religious beliefs will not get the religious to elevate their thinking, rather, you may achieve quite the opposite.
From one who believes in God and teaches about evolution.
Emily, thank you for your thoughtful comments. It’s true this song contains strong statements that might be seen as “outside the purview” of teaching evolution, but as I said in my recent response to a concerned teacher, these deliberately provocative statements are meant to point to a serious and very relevant debate about the relationship between religion and science.
The lines you quoted about a “personal god… jerkin’ off” and “banish god into the gaps” and “we’ll be alright without him” etc, are meant to highlight the fact that science has no place for miraculous (as opposed to natural or causal) explanations, and evolutionary science is no different. This is, in fact, the reason science is so effective as an explanatory tool, and Darwin clearly presented his theory as an alternative to the theory of divine special creation, not as a complement to it.
Whether individuals decide to maintain a personal sense of faith is not my concern, but I did want to address this question, and I try to only ridicule religious beliefs when they directly oppose or compete with scientific explanations.
For teachers who wish to avoid the religious implications of Darwin’s theory, the videos for Artificial Selection and DNA focus more closely on the technical side of how evolution works.
Thanks again for your input!
Fantastic stuff, Baba – music, rhyming, performance, content … this is a tremendous resource for schools to explore a truly critical area of human knowledge …
But (there has to be a “but” …) why the downer on social constructivism and Foucault?! Social constructivists don’t have any beef with evolutionary theory, surely? … if they would contest anything in this area, it would be any last vestiges of teleology – that evolution was tending towards an ordained or ‘purposeful’ end … but they certainly wouldn’t want to question the empirical truth of the evolutionary process …
It’s because social constructivists deny the relevance of evolution to understanding human behaviour, which is why David Sloan Wilson calls it “Cultural Creationism”. Here’s his exposition of the issues, which was influential for me: http://www.obscurum.se/Wilson,%20D.S.%20on%20Social%20Constructivism%20.pdf
I was ready to put this in our scheme of work until the line about God ‘jerkin off’. I’m afraid that totally ruins the educational value 🙁
Entirely understandable, but please consider adding one of the other videos, maybe Artificial Selection or I’m A African. I wrote and recorded those lines before the project morphed into an education initiative, and I concede they aren’t appropriate for all audiences. That’s rap for you!
what program use for the video