| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
13 Jul 2007 05:11:08 PM |
| Object: |
Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/06/darwinism-and-popular-culture-darwinism.html
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Darwinism and popular culture: Darwinism becoming the West's myth,
doctor says
My friend and colleague Deborah Gyapong reports on a recent talk by
Dr. John Patrick, Ottawa pediatrician and retired professor of
medicine, noting that
the "Darwinian myth" is becoming the "ordering myth" for the West,
replacing the Christian story, with potentially disastrous
consequences.
"Who would you rationally trust when we legalize doctor-assisted
suicide?" he asked. "A Darwinist physician or a doctor who believes in
judgment after death?"
Darwin's theories of natural selection, survival of the fittest and of
evolutionary progress are making an impact on health care, even though
Patrick describes the art of medicine as "very anti-Darwinist" in its
care for the sick and the vulnerable. But that is changing as society
becomes "profoundly incoherent," he said.
Patrick was speaking at a conference of Christian medical doctors,
June 3-9 at St. Augustine College in Ottawa. Unfortunately, other
speakers attempted to soothe the audience with tales of some kind of
accommodation with Darwinism, as long as the Darwinists would just
remember that Darwinism is not supposed to be the ordering myth of the
West. Yeah really.
The most interesting aspect of the current aggressive promotion of
evolutionary medicine (Darwinism in medicine and veterinaray
practice ) is its sheer clinical uselessness.
The proclamations are grand, to be sure:
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution," is
the oft-quoted title of a 1973 article for biology teachers by the
great evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. In it, he writes,
"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually
the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it
becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but
making no meaningful picture as a whole."
Evolution's role is equally central in the subset of biology
addressing human health and disease. The co-evolution of humans and
our pathogens, the rapidly shifting resistance of those pathogens to
our antibiotics, and our persistent vulnerability to chronic disease
all gain significance when viewed in the context of continuing
evolution. These subjects form the core of "Darwinian medicine," also
known as "evolutionary medicine."
But how exactly do these ills "gain significance when viewed in the
context of continuing evolution"? For the purpose of counselling and
treatment of the patient in the present day, it hardly matters when
they appeared or who - besides immediate ancestors and sibs, and
people who live nearby - has them.
Consider, for example, an illness for which there is apparently a
genetic predisposition: alcoholism. Fundamentally, the patient has
decisions to make (Will I drink or not? Will I get drunk or not?) What
if Alley Oop had the same problem? What if he didn't?
For that matter, what if there is really no genetic predisposition to
alcoholism? It makes no difference to the patient in the end. He
either drinks or he doesn't, and accepts the consequences.
One could say the same thing about obesity, that other scourge of the
family practitioner's office in prosperous countries everywhere. If
the Willendorf Venus was fat, so what? What if she had been thin? I
doubt that most Stone Age women were as certain of their next meal as
she must have been. But in the end, today's woman decides whether she
wants obesity, along with its problems, or not. And she's the only one
who can really do something about it.
Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the main
cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse) of
antibiotics. We helped the bugs get where they are. We could stop
helping them. But that doesn't mean telling the old, old story of
Darwinism over and over again; it means getting patients to accept
alternative treatments. They will only do that if they can be
persuaded that other approaches work.
I suspect that Darwinian medicine will just go the way of evolutionary
psychology. I wonder how much harm it will do first.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 08:41:05 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:57:39 -0500, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:58:18 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:42:30 -0700, HayekFan wrote:
<piggybacking, Squawking Turd is in my killfile>
Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the
main cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse)
of antibiotics
Oh damn, do they get any stupider than this?
If you need to ask, you haven't heard from very many of them.
I've heard from a lot of them and yet they still manage to surprise me.
Right when you think they've reached bottom...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Tingle" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 08:59:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:41:05 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:57:39 -0500, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:58:18 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:42:30 -0700, HayekFan wrote:
<piggybacking, Squawking Turd is in my killfile>
Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the
main cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse)
of antibiotics
Oh damn, do they get any stupider than this?
If you need to ask, you haven't heard from very many of them.
I've heard from a lot of them and yet they still manage to surprise me.
Right when you think they've reached bottom...
That applies to a lot of things. All worldly things are impure, and
all systems are imperfect. My company has been laying off continuously
from the 90's to very recently, and yet I still come across the
occasional idiot that they missed. I've decided there is no bottom,
and the non-existen bottom keeps changing.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 07:25:05 PM |
|
|
Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dhlh931lhh2f3ov7djar71dt2vpo9f2c8j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:41:05 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:57:39 -0500, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:58:18 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:42:30 -0700, HayekFan wrote:
<piggybacking, Squawking Turd is in my killfile>
Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the
main cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse)
of antibiotics
Oh damn, do they get any stupider than this?
If you need to ask, you haven't heard from very many of them.
I've heard from a lot of them and yet they still manage to surprise me.
Right when you think they've reached bottom...
That applies to a lot of things. All worldly things are impure, and
all systems are imperfect. My company has been laying off continuously
from the 90's to very recently, and yet I still come across the
occasional idiot that they missed. I've decided there is no bottom,
and the non-existen bottom keeps changing.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
When things can't get any worse, when they finally hit rock-bottom... why,
they just go sideways....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
15 Jul 2007 12:00:45 AM |
|
|
Last time that great scribe Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com> chipped
away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:41:05 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:57:39 -0500, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:58:18 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:42:30 -0700, HayekFan wrote:
<piggybacking, Squawking Turd is in my killfile>
Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the
main cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse)
of antibiotics
Oh damn, do they get any stupider than this?
If you need to ask, you haven't heard from very many of them.
I've heard from a lot of them and yet they still manage to surprise me.
Right when you think they've reached bottom...
That applies to a lot of things. All worldly things are impure, and
all systems are imperfect.
There is purity but for the most part purity is toxic and unhealthy.
When you purify some good thing you get toxic poison. Purify opium,
purify coca leaves etc. Purify a gene line and you make it weaker. Pure
bred animals do not have the healthy vigour of hybrids. I think the same
principle applies to life generally. Purify a political idea, economic
efficiency or anything else and misery follows. Impurity is robustness.
In demographics, language, multiculturalism etc, diversity and
heterogeneity is to be preferred to orthodoxy and uniformity.
If you see purity in anything, dirty it with another idea.
My company has been laying off continuously
from the 90's to very recently, and yet I still come across the
occasional idiot that they missed. I've decided there is no bottom,
and the non-existen bottom keeps changing.
Economic efficiency - a purification of another sort. An orthodoxy
causing so much grief.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
20 Jul 2007 07:12:10 PM |
|
|
On Jul 15, 1:00 am, Meteorite Debris
<epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote:
Last time that great scribeJack Tingle<wjtin...@hotmail.com> chipped
away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
That applies to a lot of things. All worldly things are impure, and
all systems are imperfect.
There is purity but for the most part purity is toxic and unhealthy.
When you purify some good thing you get toxic poison. Purify opium,
purify coca leaves etc. Purify a gene line and you make it weaker. Pure
bred animals do not have the healthy vigour of hybrids. I think the same
principle applies to life generally. Purify a political idea, economic
efficiency or anything else and misery follows. Impurity is robustness.
In demographics, language, multiculturalism etc, diversity and
heterogeneity is to be preferred to orthodoxy and uniformity.
If you see purity in anything, dirty it with another idea.
My company has been laying off continuously
from the 90's to very recently, and yet I still come across the
occasional idiot that they missed. I've decided there is no bottom,
and the non-existen bottom keeps changing.
Economic efficiency - a purification of another sort. An orthodoxy
causing so much grief.
I'm a big fan of impure solutions, this being a worldly sort of world.
Economic efficiency isn't so much an orthodoxy as one possible
solution to staying afloat. As you note, it's not a particularly
gentle one. It is effective, when used judiciously.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Idiots to the bitter end |
14 Jul 2007 09:10:02 AM |
|
|
On Jul 14, 9:59 am, Jack Tingle <wjtin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:41:05 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:57:39 -0500, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:58:18 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:42:30 -0700, HayekFan wrote:
<piggybacking, Squawking Turd is in my killfile>
Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the
main cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse)
of antibiotics
Oh damn, do they get any stupider than this?
If you need to ask, you haven't heard from very many of them.
I've heard from a lot of them and yet they still manage to surprise me.
Right when you think they've reached bottom...
That applies to a lot of things. All worldly things are impure, and
all systems are imperfect. My company has been laying off continuously
from the 90's to very recently, and yet I still come across the
occasional idiot that they missed. I've decided there is no bottom,
and the non-existen bottom keeps changing.
I think it's curious that you think that only "idiots" are
laid off. In my managerial experience, people are laid off
when it's lay-off time because (1) they aren't working on
something critical and (2) they represent a certain cost
that needs to be eliminated. Often they are the more
talented people because such people often make more
money. As with hiring, promotion, and commerce in
general, luck is a major component of success or
failure. Same as with evolution.
And thus if you observe a company or a world in
decline you are likely to see idiots to the bitter end.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Idiots to the bitter end |
20 Jul 2007 07:09:20 PM |
|
|
On Jul 14, 10:10 am, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 9:59 am,Jack Tingle<wjtin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That applies to a lot of things. All worldly things are impure, and
all systems are imperfect. My company has been laying off
continuously
from the 90's to very recently, and yet I still come across the
occasional idiot that they missed. I've decided there is no bottom,
and the non-existen bottom keeps changing.
I think it's curious that you think that only "idiots" are
laid off. In my managerial experience, people are laid off
when it's lay-off time because (1) they aren't working on
something critical and (2) they represent a certain cost
that needs to be eliminated. Often they are the more
talented people because such people often make more
money. As with hiring, promotion, and commerce in
general, luck is a major component of success or
failure. Same as with evolution.
And thus if you observe a company or a world in
decline you are likely to see idiots to the bitter end
I never said _only_ idiots are laid off, they're just laid off
preferentially. Lots of good people who happen to be unneeded also get
laid off. I'm just surprised we haven't run out of idiots. They are a
finite population, despite cynical musings to the contrary.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Idiots to the bitter end |
21 Jul 2007 03:53:13 AM |
|
|
On 21 Jul, 01:09, wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:10 am, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 9:59 am,Jack Tingle< > wrote:
That applies to a lot of things. All worldly things are impure, and
all systems are imperfect. My company has been laying off
continuously
from the 90's to very recently, and yet I still come across the
occasional idiot that they missed. I've decided there is no bottom,
and the non-existen bottom keeps changing.
I think it's curious that you think that only "idiots" are
laid off. In my managerial experience, people are laid off
when it's lay-off time because (1) they aren't working on
something critical and (2) they represent a certain cost
that needs to be eliminated. Often they are the more
talented people because such people often make more
money. As with hiring, promotion, and commerce in
general, luck is a major component of success or
failure. Same as with evolution.
And thus if you observe a company or a world in
decline you are likely to see idiots to the bitter end
I never said _only_ idiots are laid off, they're just laid off
preferentially. Lots of good people who happen to be unneeded also get
laid off. I'm just surprised we haven't run out of idiots. They are a
finite population, despite cynical musings to the contrary.
Regards,
Jack Tingle- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
To avoid ***** suckers, sheep shaggers, spammers and religious nutters
AND to enjoy a expletive free philosophy News Group join
"philosophise"!
Your reasonable and thoughtful contributions are most welcome.
Chaz Wyman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
13 Jul 2007 09:39:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:58:18 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:42:30 -0700, HayekFan wrote:
<piggybacking, Squawking Turd is in my killfile>
Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the main
cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse) of
antibiotics
Oh damn, do they get any stupider than this?
Is negative intelligence possible? They can only lose all their
intelligence, not more than all of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 08:39:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:39:00 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:58:18 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:42:30 -0700, HayekFan wrote:
<piggybacking, Squawking Turd is in my killfile>
Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the
main cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse)
of antibiotics
Oh damn, do they get any stupider than this?
Is negative intelligence possible? They can only lose all their
intelligence, not more than all of it.
I'm beginning to think negative intelligence is possible. When Squawing
Turd enters a room, everybody loses five points off their IQ...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 08:08:43 PM |
|
|
On Jul 13, 10:39 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:58:18 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:42:30 -0700, HayekFan wrote:
<piggybacking, Squawking Turd is in my killfile>
Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the main
cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse) of
antibiotics
Oh damn, do they get any stupider than this?
Is negative intelligence possible? They can only lose all their
intelligence, not more than all of it.
Apobetics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
15 Jul 2007 06:29:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:08:43 -0700, Lorentz <drosen0000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Apobetics
Gesundheit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 01:17:53 AM |
|
|
On Jul 13, 6:11 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/06/darwinism-and-popular-cult...
Thursday, June 28, 2007
My friend and colleague Deborah Gyapong reports on a recent talk by
Dr. John Patrick, Ottawa pediatrician and retired professor of
medicine, noting that
It is good he retired, as she obviously hasn't kept up in the
field of medicine. Furthermore, she is making false comments. She may
have once been a competent doctor, but based on what you are saying
she has become a hack.
"Who would you rationally trust when we legalize doctor-assisted
suicide?" he asked. "A Darwinist physician or a doctor who believes in
judgment after death?"
Given those two choices, and no other information, I would
trust the Darwinist doctor. The law doesn't matter here as long as I
am making the decision. Therefore, I would try to choose the doctor
who I feel could give me the most accurate knowledge on what I could
expect. I know there are Darwinist and religious doctors who would
tell me things to manipulate my behavior. I would try to avoid
dishonest doctors regardless of religious or atheist orientation,
because I want the truth. At least with an openly Darwinist doctor, I
right off have a person who has an interest in biological reality. If
I decide to live, I most certainly don't want a religious doctor. I
want a scientist, not a wizard, to treat me. I want someone who will
get an accurate diagnosis regardless of what happens to my soul. I
want Doctor House.
Darwin's theories of natural selection, survival of the fittest and of
evolutionary progress are making an impact on health care, even though
Patrick describes the art of medicine as "very anti-Darwinist" in its
care for the sick and the vulnerable. But that is changing as society
becomes "profoundly incoherent," he said.
Patrick was speaking at a conference of Christian medical doctors,
June 3-9 at St. Augustine College in Ottawa.
The most interesting aspect of the current aggressive promotion of
evolutionary medicine (Darwinism in medicine and veterinaray
practice ) is its sheer clinical uselessness.
I'll start with a basic fact about viral vaccines, that shows
clearly that Doctor Patrick is WRONG. Vaccines are currently made
anticipating the strains that are most likely to break out in an
epidemic. Strains are tested for rate of mutation, and vaccines are
prepared against the strains that mutate the fastest. That's right,
not the ones who start out spreading the fastest. The ones that mutate
the fastest. This is a direct application of Darwin's theory of
evolution. Darwinism, right there, has been shown to be clinically
useful. Doctor Patrick, by not even acknowledging this application,
shows himself to be an ignorant quack.
The proclamations are grand, to be sure:
I was about to call Doctor Patrick senile. However, he may be just
a liar.
Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin),
L
I have it on good authority that the main
cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse) of
antibiotics. We helped the bugs get where they are. We could stop
helping them. But that doesn't mean telling the old, old story of
Darwinism over and over again; it means getting patients to accept
alternative treatments. They will only do that if they can be
persuaded that other approaches work.
With regard to antibiotics, I present five pieces of evidence that
Doctor Patrick is incompetent (because of either senility or lying, I
don't care which).
1) Most of the abuse is in cases where the antibiotics aren't
needed in the first place. The Darwinist story prevents doctors from
giving them prophylactic doses of antibiotics. Often, the doctor knows
the antibiotic isn't necessary even as a prophylactic. He gives it to
make the parent or child feel that they got their moneys worth.
Apparently, the ignorant Doctor Patrick would give prophylactic
antibiotics if he would come out of retirement.
2) Much of the MDR strains developed because the patient wasn't
completing their course of treatment. The surviving bacteria evolved
after repeated but incomplete treatments. Without the Darwinist story,
there would be no chick on this dangerous practice. Doctors are now on
their patients to complete their sequence of therapy.
Apparently, the ignorant Doctor Patrick would not pressure his
patients to complete their course of treatment if he would come out of
retirement.
3) New antibiotics have to be developed all the time to counter
the emerging MDR strains. However, some of these antibiotics are being
designed so that mutations that make them ineffectual will be
unlikely. Regardless, new antibiotics have to be used all the time
now.
The ignorant Doctor Patrick obviously doesn't keep up with research
on antibiotics.
4) Some MDR strains have been generated from the use of antibiotics on
cattle, given to them mostly to fatten them up.
The Darwinist story is convincing some farmers to use fewer
antibiotics.
Apparently, the ignorant Doctor Patrick obviously is unaware of
veterinary medicine.
5) Some patients really do the right thing and avoid behaviors that
put both other people at risk, and sometimes even themselves.
Apparently, the ignorant and arrogant Doctor Patrick obviously
doesn't think enough of his own patients to trust that some of them
have concern for others.
I suspect that Darwinian medicine will just go the way of evolutionary
psychology. I wonder how much harm it will do first.
All things pass. Fortunately, evolutionary medicine will
continue longer than the ignorant Doctor Patrick. Evolutionary
psychology will be useful in explaining how lying ignorant quacks like
Doctor Patrick have evolved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pupleDNA" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 06:17:19 AM |
|
|
2) Much of the MDR strains developed because the patient wasn't
completing their course of treatment. The surviving bacteria evolved
after repeated but incomplete treatments. Without the Darwinist story,
there would be no chick on this dangerous practice. Doctors are now on
their patients to complete their sequence of therapy.
Apparently, the ignorant Doctor Patrick would not pressure his
patients to complete their course of treatment if he would come out of
retirement.
I agree. The main problem is that people start taking antibiotics and
then stop them immediately when they 'feel good'. This results in the
antibiotics not completing their natural cycle and the bacteria
survivng. The vast majority of people treat them as painkillers,
something you take once or twice to make you feel better and then
forget about it.
Also, is it me or is Deborah Gyapong's structure of thinking very
close to Deusberg's.
-purple
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 08:09:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:17:53 -0700, Lorentz wrote:
On Jul 13, 6:11 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/06/darwinism-and-popular-
cult...
Thursday, June 28, 2007
My friend and colleague Deborah Gyapong reports on a recent talk by Dr.
John Patrick, Ottawa pediatrician and retired professor of medicine,
noting that
It is good he retired, as she obviously hasn't kept up in the
field of medicine. Furthermore, she is making false comments. She may
have once been a competent doctor, but based on what you are saying she
has become a hack.
"Who would you rationally trust when we legalize doctor-assisted
suicide?" he asked. "A Darwinist physician or a doctor who believes in
judgment after death?"
Given those two choices, and no other information, I would
trust the Darwinist doctor. The law doesn't matter here as long as I am
making the decision. Therefore, I would try to choose the doctor who I
feel could give me the most accurate knowledge on what I could expect. I
know there are Darwinist and religious doctors who would tell me things
to manipulate my behavior. I would try to avoid dishonest doctors
regardless of religious or atheist orientation, because I want the
truth. At least with an openly Darwinist doctor, I right off have a
person who has an interest in biological reality. If I decide to live, I
most certainly don't want a religious doctor. I want a scientist, not a
wizard, to treat me. I want someone who will get an accurate diagnosis
regardless of what happens to my soul. I want Doctor House.
Darwin's theories of natural selection, survival of the fittest and of
evolutionary progress are making an impact on health care, even though
Patrick describes the art of medicine as "very anti-Darwinist" in its
care for the sick and the vulnerable. But that is changing as society
becomes "profoundly incoherent," he said.
Patrick was speaking at a conference of Christian medical doctors, June
3-9 at St. Augustine College in Ottawa. The most interesting aspect of
the current aggressive promotion of evolutionary medicine (Darwinism in
medicine and veterinaray practice ) is its sheer clinical uselessness.
I'll start with a basic fact about viral vaccines, that shows
clearly that Doctor Patrick is WRONG. Vaccines are currently made
anticipating the strains that are most likely to break out in an
epidemic. Strains are tested for rate of mutation, and vaccines are
prepared against the strains that mutate the fastest. That's right, not
the ones who start out spreading the fastest. The ones that mutate the
fastest. This is a direct application of Darwin's theory of evolution.
Darwinism, right there, has been shown to be clinically useful. Doctor
Patrick, by not even acknowledging this application, shows himself to be
an ignorant quack.
The proclamations are grand, to be sure:
I was about to call Doctor Patrick senile. However, he may be just
a liar.
Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin),
L
I have it on good authority that the main
cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse) of
antibiotics. We helped the bugs get where they are. We could stop
helping them. But that doesn't mean telling the old, old story of
Darwinism over and over again; it means getting patients to accept
alternative treatments. They will only do that if they can be persuaded
that other approaches work.
With regard to antibiotics, I present five pieces of evidence that
Doctor Patrick is incompetent (because of either senility or lying, I
don't care which).
1) Most of the abuse is in cases where the antibiotics aren't
needed in the first place. The Darwinist story prevents doctors from
giving them prophylactic doses of antibiotics. Often, the doctor knows
the antibiotic isn't necessary even as a prophylactic. He gives it to
make the parent or child feel that they got their moneys worth.
Apparently, the ignorant Doctor Patrick would give prophylactic
antibiotics if he would come out of retirement. 2) Much of the MDR
strains developed because the patient wasn't completing their course of
treatment. The surviving bacteria evolved after repeated but incomplete
treatments. Without the Darwinist story, there would be no chick on this
dangerous practice. Doctors are now on their patients to complete their
sequence of therapy.
Apparently, the ignorant Doctor Patrick would not pressure his
patients to complete their course of treatment if he would come out of
retirement.
3) New antibiotics have to be developed all the time to counter the
emerging MDR strains. However, some of these antibiotics are being
designed so that mutations that make them ineffectual will be unlikely.
Regardless, new antibiotics have to be used all the time now.
The ignorant Doctor Patrick obviously doesn't keep up with research
on antibiotics.
4) Some MDR strains have been generated from the use of antibiotics on
cattle, given to them mostly to fatten them up. The Darwinist story is
convincing some farmers to use fewer antibiotics.
Apparently, the ignorant Doctor Patrick obviously is unaware of
veterinary medicine.
5) Some patients really do the right thing and avoid behaviors that put
both other people at risk, and sometimes even themselves.
Apparently, the ignorant and arrogant Doctor Patrick obviously
doesn't think enough of his own patients to trust that some of them have
concern for others.
6) Some neo-Darwinist patients (me at least <g>) have reduced their use
of anti-biotics and insisted on the least powerful effective one when one
is necessary. Not so much out of concern for others but simple self-
interest. As in anti-biotics are meant to assist the immune system, not
replace it, and overuse can actually weaken it.
Just basic evolutionary thinking. We humans evolved the ability to adapt
to a wide variety of conditions, part of which is our immune system
"learns" (as it were). Mild illnesses are good for you. Call them "work
outs" for the immune system. <g>
I also don't use any anti-bacterial soaps nor cleansers (which people
should only be using if they're caring for an immuno-compromised person).
I'd rather not risk being the evolutionary pressure for bacteria to
develop resistence. Definitely not right in my kitchen!
So, interestingly enough, after hearing all the nagging from all my nurse
relatives (and they are legion) about my smoking (which isn't good and I
should quit, etc.) then way things have shaken out is *I'm* the healthy
one.
That's right. I'm the one who, over the years of being all "Darwinist"
about my health, has the stronger immune system and hasn't run a high
enough fever to need a doctor and anti-biotics in about three years now.
If I need to go to a doctor more than once a year (usually because I did
something stupid and messed up my back), I think of it as a "bad year"
health wise.
I'm 45 and I get sick *less* than I did in my late 20s and early 30s and
even when I do, it's less "intense" I guess you could say.
Damn Darwin!
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 09:24:19 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote
snip
If I need to go to a doctor more than once a year (usually because I did
something stupid and messed up my back), I think of it as a "bad year"
health wise.
I'm 45 and I get sick *less* than I did in my late 20s and early 30s and
even when I do, it's less "intense" I guess you could say.
Damn Darwin!
<Snicker> Wait until your niece (that's the new one, right?) starts
preschool and comes home with her first cold. Those little kid colds and
flues will knock you on your ***** ;)
I was rarely sick until I had the witchling. Coincidence? I think not! ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 10:20:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:24:19 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote snip
If I need to go to a doctor more than once a year (usually because I
did something stupid and messed up my back), I think of it as a "bad
year" health wise.
I'm 45 and I get sick *less* than I did in my late 20s and early 30s
and even when I do, it's less "intense" I guess you could say.
Damn Darwin!
<Snicker> Wait until your niece (that's the new one, right?)
More like step-grand-nephew... er... something like that.
starts
preschool and comes home with her first cold. Those little kid colds and
flues will knock you on your ***** ;)
They moved down with the SIL's relatives. So it's kinda self limiting as
if he's sick, they won't likely be coming up this way.
I was rarely sick until I had the witchling. Coincidence? I think not!
;)
Not at all. Kids share everything...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"What the hell is an aluminum Falcon?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 11:35:09 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:RI6dnSrKHJAkdAXbnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:24:19 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote snip
If I need to go to a doctor more than once a year (usually because I
did something stupid and messed up my back), I think of it as a "bad
year" health wise.
I'm 45 and I get sick *less* than I did in my late 20s and early 30s
and even when I do, it's less "intense" I guess you could say.
Damn Darwin!
<Snicker> Wait until your niece (that's the new one, right?)
More like step-grand-nephew... er... something like that.
Oh yeah, I knew it was something a bit more complicated.
starts
preschool and comes home with her first cold. Those little kid colds and
flues will knock you on your ***** ;)
They moved down with the SIL's relatives. So it's kinda self limiting as
if he's sick, they won't likely be coming up this way.
Good thing too.
I was rarely sick until I had the witchling. Coincidence? I think not!
;)
Not at all. Kids share everything...
Definitely. However, I wish she'd keep that 24-hour stomach bug to herself.
Ack ;P
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 01:48:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:35:09 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:RI6dnSrKHJAkdAXbnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:24:19 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote snip
If I need to go to a doctor more than once a year (usually because I
did something stupid and messed up my back), I think of it as a "bad
year" health wise.
I'm 45 and I get sick *less* than I did in my late 20s and early 30s
and even when I do, it's less "intense" I guess you could say.
Damn Darwin!
<Snicker> Wait until your niece (that's the new one, right?)
More like step-grand-nephew... er... something like that.
Oh yeah, I knew it was something a bit more complicated.
starts
preschool and comes home with her first cold. Those little kid colds
and flues will knock you on your ***** ;)
They moved down with the SIL's relatives. So it's kinda self limiting
as if he's sick, they won't likely be coming up this way.
Good thing too.
I was rarely sick until I had the witchling. Coincidence? I think not!
;)
Not at all. Kids share everything...
Definitely. However, I wish she'd keep that 24-hour stomach bug to
herself. Ack ;P
Fat chance. And she'll get over a "24" hour bug in three hours while you
take three days...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Warned you we tried! Listen you did not! Now screwed
we will all be!"
http://www.sequentialpictures.com/moviestarwarsepisode3.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 02:09:45 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:j4SdnZxA5Z74hwTbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@giganews.com...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:35:09 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:RI6dnSrKHJAkdAXbnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:24:19 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote snip
If I need to go to a doctor more than once a year (usually because I
did something stupid and messed up my back), I think of it as a "bad
year" health wise.
I'm 45 and I get sick *less* than I did in my late 20s and early 30s
and even when I do, it's less "intense" I guess you could say.
Damn Darwin!
<Snicker> Wait until your niece (that's the new one, right?)
More like step-grand-nephew... er... something like that.
Oh yeah, I knew it was something a bit more complicated.
starts
preschool and comes home with her first cold. Those little kid colds
and flues will knock you on your ***** ;)
They moved down with the SIL's relatives. So it's kinda self limiting
as if he's sick, they won't likely be coming up this way.
Good thing too.
I was rarely sick until I had the witchling. Coincidence? I think not!
;)
Not at all. Kids share everything...
Definitely. However, I wish she'd keep that 24-hour stomach bug to
herself. Ack ;P
Fat chance. And she'll get over a "24" hour bug in three hours while you
take three days...
LOL, no, it pretty much sticks to the traditional 24 hours. At least I get
to see Robot Chicken because I'm up all night puking ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 07:30:15 PM |
|
|
On Jul 14, 9:09 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:17:53 -0700,Lorentzwrote:
On Jul 13, 6:11 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/06/darwinism-and-popular-
cult...
Thursday, June 28, 2007
So, interestingly enough, after hearing all the nagging from all my nurse
relatives (and they are legion) about my smoking (which isn't good and I
should quit, etc.) then way things have shaken out is *I'm* the healthy
one.
That's right. I'm the one who, over the years of being all "Darwinist"
about my health, has the stronger immune system and hasn't run a high
enough fever to need a doctor and anti-biotics in about three years now.
There is nothing in Darwin's theory that would promote smoking. It
endangers not only the person smoking, but people around the people
smoking. I have heard the pseudo-Darwinist argument that elimination
of the weak by secondary smoke may result in stronger race of people.
However, the person who made this statement was a scientific moron as
well as being a paranoid lunatic. He knew nothing about Darwin or
biology.
There are many objections, moral and Darwinist, that can be
made. One Darwinist objection: the mechanism by which people would
develop such a resistance to secondary smoke is unknown. It may not
correlate with any other mechanism of strength. Maybe people who
survive the secondary will be those and reproduce will be those whose
nostrils generate more protective mucous, resulting in people more
prone to pneumonia. Or maybe people resistant to secondary smoke will
be stupid. Or maybe he was already stupid.
Furthermore, the world before antibiotics was not a healthy
world. People were sick all the time, and people fell from pandemics
in the millions. The worse thing MDR bacteria could do is return the
world to the conditions that existed before antibiotics were invented.
So I think the total avoidance of antibiotics is equally stupid.
Please don't invoke Darwin for extreme behaviors that may be stupid
even in a Darwinist analysis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
14 Jul 2007 11:41:33 PM |
|
|
Last time that great scribe Lorentz <drosen0000@yahoo.com> chipped away
at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
I have heard the pseudo-Darwinist argument that elimination
of the weak by secondary smoke may result in stronger race of people.
However, the person who made this statement was a scientific moron as
well as being a paranoid lunatic. He knew nothing about Darwin or
biology.
It would seem. The effect of allowing secondary smoke to select
survivors would not be a "stronger race" of people, only a race of
people who were not affected by secondary smoke, with all other traits,
good, bad and indifferent, still being present in the gene pool. There
seems to a an impression of some absolute "stronger" set of traits for
all and any environment.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
15 Jul 2007 04:36:00 AM |
|
|
Meteorite Debris <epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.210449848222b44e989832@news.ade.connect.com.au...
Last time that great scribe Lorentz <drosen0000@yahoo.com> chipped away
at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
I have heard the pseudo-Darwinist argument that elimination
of the weak by secondary smoke may result in stronger race of people.
However, the person who made this statement was a scientific moron as
well as being a paranoid lunatic. He knew nothing about Darwin or
biology.
It would seem. The effect of allowing secondary smoke to select
survivors would not be a "stronger race" of people, only a race of
people who were not affected by secondary smoke, with all other traits,
good, bad and indifferent, still being present in the gene pool. There
seems to a an impression of some absolute "stronger" set of traits for
all and any environment.
There does seem to be an *****-backwards concept of Darwins theories that
suggests that evolution inevitably pushes towards producing the 'perfect'
being and that a species will all become a perfect copy of such a perfect
example of that species, thus producing the best possible variant for all
circumstances. Thus we get eugenics and what tends to get called
'Darwinism'.
It's all a nonsense, the strength of a species, its ability to survive and
adapt and therefore procreate is not in being, or striving to be, the same
uber-specimen, it is in variety, in the multiplicity of differences to be
found within its genetic pool. This is what enables a species to adapt to
changing environments and conditions, allowing the _species_ to survive
regardless of the consequence of natural selection to any particular
_individual_ within that species at any particular time.
In effect, eugenics, genetic manipulation or other intervention in the
natural selective process is contra-darwinism. Removing potentially faulty
( within the context of the then environment) variants is not 'Darwinist' at
all.
There's a funny thing, it's those who object to genetic manipulation,
scanning and selective abortion for 'negative traits', etc who are the
'Darwinists' in _that_ argument.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
20 Jul 2007 05:39:29 PM |
|
|
On Jul 15, 5:36 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
Meteorite Debris <epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.210449848222b44e989832@news.ade.connect.com.au...
There does seem to be an *****-backwards concept of Darwins theories that
suggests that evolution inevitably pushes towards producing the 'perfect'
being and that a species will all become a perfect copy of such a perfect
example of that species, thus producing the best possible variant for all
circumstances. Thus we get eugenics and what tends to get called
'Darwinism'.
I don't think this is very good eugenics either. For one thing, it
isn't really based on any hereditary.
In effect, eugenics, genetic manipulation or other intervention in the
natural selective process is contra-darwinism. Removing potentially faulty
( within the context of the then environment) variants is not 'Darwinist' at
all.
This, I'm afraid, is incorrect. Darwin himself did suggest that
selective breeding could result in certain overall improvements. The
idea of improving the race is consistent with the idea of natural
selection. He did point out some of the possible shortfalls, however.
In "Ascent of Man," he pointed out that the choice of romantic
courtship probably ended up resulting in a sort of eugenics result
anyway. People are always striving for mates who are more intelligent,
stronger, healthier, more compassionate, etc. Forcing a eugenics
program on people will probably end up eliminating the natural
selection for compassion, something many of us don't want to do. So he
suggested leaving the dating game as it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
21 Jul 2007 02:21:42 AM |
|
|
Lorentz <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184971169.567432.207320@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 15, 5:36 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
Meteorite Debris <epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.210449848222b44e989832@news.ade.connect.com.au...
There does seem to be an *****-backwards concept of Darwins theories that
suggests that evolution inevitably pushes towards producing the
'perfect'
being and that a species will all become a perfect copy of such a
perfect
example of that species, thus producing the best possible variant for
all
circumstances. Thus we get eugenics and what tends to get called
'Darwinism'.
I don't think this is very good eugenics either. For one thing, it
isn't really based on any hereditary.
In effect, eugenics, genetic manipulation or other intervention in the
natural selective process is contra-darwinism. Removing potentially
faulty
( within the context of the then environment) variants is not
'Darwinist' at
all.
This, I'm afraid, is incorrect. Darwin himself did suggest that
selective breeding could result in certain overall improvements. The
idea of improving the race is consistent with the idea of natural
selection. He did point out some of the possible shortfalls, however.
In "Ascent of Man," he pointed out that the choice of romantic
courtship probably ended up resulting in a sort of eugenics result
anyway. People are always striving for mates who are more intelligent,
stronger, healthier, more compassionate, etc. Forcing a eugenics
program on people will probably end up eliminating the natural
selection for compassion, something many of us don't want to do. So he
suggested leaving the dating game as it is.
You miss my point, Darwins Theories cover 'natural selection'... the random
mixing of various traits in a specific environment which will tend to
promote those traits best suited to survival of the species. But those
traits which are not best suited do not disappear, they re-occur, frequently
and it is necessary that they do, to meet the challenge of a future changed
environment and provide an alternative development path for that speices.
Eugenics, and here it does get a bit complicated, and 'Darwinism' or
'neo-darwinism' (why complex, because the terms are interchanged and
confused with each other when they are not scientifically compatible at all
: Darwinism is the study of the theory of natural selection, 'neo-darwinism'
is a specific application of political and social 'rules' allegedly derived
from those theories) covers 'selective breeding' : the effort to remove
undesirable traits and promote a 'pure breed' containing only those traits
deemed desirable. In doing so, the aim is to stop 'natural selection' in its
tracks, to channel evolutionary pressures into a fixed path and once
achieved, halt any further development or variation.
Mixing up all the terms does not aid the debate, which, I often think, is
the purpose of doing so for some, in the hope of giving a 'scientific' or
'natural' sheen to their theories..
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
21 Jul 2007 03:54:02 AM |
|
|
On 21 Jul, 08:21, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184971169.567432.207320@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 15, 5:36 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
Meteorite Debris <epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.210449848222b44e989832@news.ade.connect.com.au...
There does seem to be an *****-backwards concept of Darwins theories that
suggests that evolution inevitably pushes towards producing the
'perfect'
being and that a species will all become a perfect copy of such a
perfect
example of that species, thus producing the best possible variant for
all
circumstances. Thus we get eugenics and what tends to get called
'Darwinism'.
I don't think this is very good eugenics either. For one thing, it
isn't really based on any hereditary.
In effect, eugenics, genetic manipulation or other intervention in the
natural selective process is contra-darwinism. Removing potentially
faulty
( within the context of the then environment) variants is not
'Darwinist' at
all.
This, I'm afraid, is incorrect. Darwin himself did suggest that
selective breeding could result in certain overall improvements. The
idea of improving the race is consistent with the idea of natural
selection. He did point out some of the possible shortfalls, however.
In "Ascent of Man," he pointed out that the choice of romantic
courtship probably ended up resulting in a sort of eugenics result
anyway. People are always striving for mates who are more intelligent,
stronger, healthier, more compassionate, etc. Forcing a eugenics
program on people will probably end up eliminating the natural
selection for compassion, something many of us don't want to do. So he
suggested leaving the dating game as it is.
You miss my point, Darwins Theories cover 'natural selection'... the random
mixing of various traits in a specific environment which will tend to
promote those traits best suited to survival of the species. But those
traits which are not best suited do not disappear, they re-occur, frequently
and it is necessary that they do, to meet the challenge of a future changed
environment and provide an alternative development path for that speices.
Eugenics, and here it does get a bit complicated, and 'Darwinism' or
'neo-darwinism' (why complex, because the terms are interchanged and
confused with each other when they are not scientifically compatible at all
: Darwinism is the study of the theory of natural selection, 'neo-darwinism'
is a specific application of political and social 'rules' allegedly derived
from those theories) covers 'selective breeding' : the effort to remove
undesirable traits and promote a 'pure breed' containing only those traits
deemed desirable. In doing so, the aim is to stop 'natural selection' in its
tracks, to channel evolutionary pressures into a fixed path and once
achieved, halt any further development or variation.
Mixing up all the terms does not aid the debate, which, I often think, is
the purpose of doing so for some, in the hope of giving a 'scientific' or
'natural' sheen to their theories..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
To avoid ***** suckers, sheep shaggers, spammers and religious nutters
AND to enjoy a expletive free philosophy News Group join
"philosophise"!
Your reasonable and thoughtful contributions are most welcome.
Chaz Wyman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Skua" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
21 Jul 2007 09:53:03 AM |
|
|
brique wrote:
Lorentz <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184971169.567432.207320@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 15, 5:36 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
Meteorite Debris <epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.210449848222b44e989832@news.ade.connect.com.au...
There does seem to be an *****-backwards concept of Darwins theories that
suggests that evolution inevitably pushes towards producing the
'perfect'
being and that a species will all become a perfect copy of such a
perfect
example of that species, thus producing the best possible variant for
all
circumstances. Thus we get eugenics and what tends to get called
'Darwinism'.
I don't think this is very good eugenics either. For one thing, it
isn't really based on any hereditary.
In effect, eugenics, genetic manipulation or other intervention in the
natural selective process is contra-darwinism. Removing potentially
faulty
( within the context of the then environment) variants is not
'Darwinist' at
all.
This, I'm afraid, is incorrect. Darwin himself did suggest that
selective breeding could result in certain overall improvements. The
idea of improving the race is consistent with the idea of natural
selection. He did point out some of the possible shortfalls, however.
In "Ascent of Man," he pointed out that the choice of romantic
courtship probably ended up resulting in a sort of eugenics result
anyway. People are always striving for mates who are more intelligent,
stronger, healthier, more compassionate, etc. Forcing a eugenics
program on people will probably end up eliminating the natural
selection for compassion, something many of us don't want to do. So he
suggested leaving the dating game as it is.
You miss my point, Darwins Theories cover 'natural selection'... the random
mixing of various traits in a specific environment which will tend to
promote those traits best suited to survival of the species. But those
traits which are not best suited do not disappear, they re-occur, frequently
and it is necessary that they do, to meet the challenge of a future changed
environment and provide an alternative development path for that speices.
Eugenics, and here it does get a bit complicated, and 'Darwinism' or
'neo-darwinism' (why complex, because the terms are interchanged and
confused with each other when they are not scientifically compatible at all
: Darwinism is the study of the theory of natural selection, 'neo-darwinism'
is a specific application of political and social 'rules' allegedly derived
from those theories) covers 'selective breeding' : the effort to remove
undesirable traits and promote a 'pure breed' containing only those traits
deemed desirable. In doing so, the aim is to stop 'natural selection' in its
tracks, to channel evolutionary pressures into a fixed path and once
achieved, halt any further development or variation.
Mixing up all the terms does not aid the debate, which, I often think, is
the purpose of doing so for some, in the hope of giving a 'scientific' or
'natural' sheen to their theories..
To add even more confusion, I've heard 'neo-Darwinism' used to mean the
science of evolution after genes and DNA were understood.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph K." |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
21 Jul 2007 09:58:49 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:36:00 +0100, "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m>
wrote:
Meteorite Debris <epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.210449848222b44e989832@news.ade.connect.com.au...
Last time that great scribe Lorentz <drosen0000@yahoo.com> chipped away
at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
I have heard the pseudo-Darwinist argument that elimination
of the weak by secondary smoke may result in stronger race of people.
However, the person who made this statement was a scientific moron as
well as being a paranoid lunatic. He knew nothing about Darwin or
biology.
It would seem. The effect of allowing secondary smoke to select
survivors would not be a "stronger race" of people, only a race of
people who were not affected by secondary smoke, with all other traits,
good, bad and indifferent, still being present in the gene pool. There
seems to a an impression of some absolute "stronger" set of traits for
all and any environment.
There does seem to be an *****-backwards concept of Darwins theories that
suggests that evolution inevitably pushes towards producing the 'perfect'
being and that a species will all become a perfect copy of such a perfect
example of that species, thus producing the best possible variant for all
circumstances. Thus we get eugenics and what tends to get called
'Darwinism'.
In some biological circles, that idea is called Panglossianism, after
a famous article by Richard Levins and Stephen J. Gould, where they
ridicule (scientifically) it by quote Voltaire's character Dr.
Pangloss, whom after every misfortune and reversal, always said that
that happened for an ultimate good reason, and therefore that we live
in the best possible world. The interesting political implication of
that idea is that a system of privilege, castes and all that, must be
endured, for that system came about evolutionarily for a good reason,
and attempts to change the system are contra-natura.
It's all a nonsense, the strength of a species, its ability to survive and
adapt and therefore procreate is not in being, or striving to be, the same
uber-specimen, it is in variety, in the multiplicity of differences to be
found within its genetic pool. This is what enables a species to adapt to
changing environments and conditions, allowing the _species_ to survive
regardless of the consequence of natural selection to any particular
_individual_ within that species at any particular time.
Not all the strength of populations to survive and adapt lies in
variety. Some environmenst are very stable and most of the DNA must be
copied without variation for all populations. Some succesful species
such as turtles, sharks, dragonflies, etc, have thrived for eons
without much variation. Variety is only one aspect of evolution, most
of the time of minor importance, and it becomes more relevant when the
environment goes through major re-adjustments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
21 Jul 2007 07:56:15 PM |
|
|
Joseph K. <nihil@none.com> wrote in message
news:sl64a3t165cp7mkp8sae8o1ivsatqg54i7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:36:00 +0100, "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m>
wrote:
Meteorite Debris <epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.210449848222b44e989832@news.ade.connect.com.au...
Last time that great scribe Lorentz <drosen0000@yahoo.com> chipped away
at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
I have heard the pseudo-Darwinist argument that elimination
of the weak by secondary smoke may result in stronger race of people.
However, the person who made this statement was a scientific moron as
well as being a paranoid lunatic. He knew nothing about Darwin or
biology.
It would seem. The effect of allowing secondary smoke to select
survivors would not be a "stronger race" of people, only a race of
people who were not affected by secondary smoke, with all other traits,
good, bad and indifferent, still being present in the gene pool. There
seems to a an impression of some absolute "stronger" set of traits for
all and any environment.
There does seem to be an *****-backwards concept of Darwins theories that
suggests that evolution inevitably pushes towards producing the 'perfect'
being and that a species will all become a perfect copy of such a perfect
example of that species, thus producing the best possible variant for all
circumstances. Thus we get eugenics and what tends to get called
'Darwinism'.
In some biological circles, that idea is called Panglossianism, after
a famous article by Richard Levins and Stephen J. Gould, where they
ridicule (scientifically) it by quote Voltaire's character Dr.
Pangloss, whom after every misfortune and reversal, always said that
that happened for an ultimate good reason, and therefore that we live
in the best possible world. The interesting political implication of
that idea is that a system of privilege, castes and all that, must be
endured, for that system came about evolutionarily for a good reason,
and attempts to change the system are contra-natura.
It's all a nonsense, the strength of a species, its ability to survive
and
adapt and therefore procreate is not in being, or striving to be, the
same
uber-specimen, it is in variety, in the multiplicity of differences to be
found within its genetic pool. This is what enables a species to adapt to
changing environments and conditions, allowing the _species_ to survive
regardless of the consequence of natural selection to any particular
_individual_ within that species at any particular time.
Not all the strength of populations to survive and adapt lies in
variety. Some environmenst are very stable and most of the DNA must be
copied without variation for all populations. Some succesful species
such as turtles, sharks, dragonflies, etc, have thrived for eons
without much variation. Variety is only one aspect of evolution, most
of the time of minor importance, and it becomes more relevant when the
environment goes through major re-adjustments.
Indeed, as long as the environment remains stable, the tendency is to
homogenise. But the variation still crops up in every generation, it tends
not to survive, is all. But for the species to survive an environment
change, the variation needs to be there to then be 'selected', that is,
those individuals will survive to breed whereas the former 'best of' will no
longer have that advantage.
Of course, it would also depend on the speed of any environmental change
that occurred, the more sudden, the less time the species has to 'tap' its
gene pool for the best adaptation and spread it widely enough to maintain a
viable population.
Like the dodo, which was wiped out before it could 'learn' to fly again. I
suppose we could consider the shrinking ice-caps to be a practical lesson in
this subject, I wonder if anyone is observing how various species, such as
penguins, polar bears and arctic foxes, are adapting, or not, to that
environment change?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth |
21 Jul 2007 10:00:11 PM |
|
|
In article <1185065892.54554.0@despina.uk.clara.net>,
"brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
But the variation still crops up in every generation, it tends
not to survive, is all.
Some variation survives, especially in species that exploit a wide
niche, like Homer the sap. Many variants are neutral, some give
advantages in certain circumstances. For example, some give resistance
to some diseases at the cost of venerability to others. Even color
blindness can be an advantage, it give the person increased ability to
detect camouflage. "Now old Elmer is not so good in the hunt, but he can
chip flint like no one else in the tribe, so he keeps an honored place
in the tribe and stays in camp with the women while the men hunt." In
fact I have heard of a tribe that keeps having albinos in their mix even
though they never marry. It turns out that they stay home with the women
and put their strength into the women's work, which turns out to be
advantageous for the tribe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
