Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition

Religions > Atheism > Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 20 of 78

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"david ford"
Date:	25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM
Object:	Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition

The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.

User: "Augray"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	18 Aug 2005 10:04:41 AM

wrote:

I said that scientists should incorporate a historical view in terms of
decisions into science, not that they should include God's purpose.

Then what did you mean in
news:1123933728.347983.46880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com when you wrote:
Purpose, as you well know by common knowledge, exists in relation
to decisions, events with several possible outcomes. So one may see
the formation of DNA in regards to the decisions at which it is was
determined to turn out the way it did, and there one may find some
purpose.
Just what purpose where you talking about? *Whose* purpose were you
talking about?

That is surely enough when we can point to a decision at which the
likelyhood of some KIND of organisms coming to be was set, and later
decisions to specify the exact appearance.

How do you know that was the intent of the "decision"?

That sort of thinking is
what creationism is all about, and evolutionists do not have it, still
further they seek to deny decisions in emotions even.

No, they're unaware of any basis for comment.

Let's have a test on it, test highschool creationists vs college
graduated evolutionary biologists on their knowledge about decision.

Testing:
1. their knowledge of any decisions in the universe

Sentient beings make they all the time.

2. their awareness of, and application of knowledge about decisions

Sentient beings make they all the time.

3. their religious knowledge to talk meaningfully about the identity of
the owners of decisions

I thought you said that they shouldn't include God's purpose.

The graduates would be beaten, obviously.

They'd be blown off their feet by the hand waving of the creationists.

I would never hire an evolutionist for some job like a stockbroker, or
politician, or sports, or any job in which a keyed in sense of
decisions is important.

And I'd never hire someone like you do almost any job, because they'd
see every event as a manifestation of God's purpose. Why did the bridge
collapse? God wanted it that way. Why doesn't my computer work? God
wants it that way. Why is everyone dying from the plague? God wants it
that way. You get the idea.

I'm sure that when I pass the football to an evolutionist, he would
just stand there and go into a philosphical discourse doubting the
existence of free will, in stead of shooting the ball into the wide
open goal, having no sense of timing decisions whatsoever.

So you're now equating the universe to a football game? You claim at the
beginning of your post that God's purpose shouldn't be included, yet you
seem to demand that science attribute every event back to him.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

User: ""
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	18 Aug 2005 10:49:37 AM

Anybody who goes into a philosphical tailspin for use of the word
decision outside a human brain, would do badly in anticipating
decisions falling in nature generally.
No doubt about it, Augray would be severely beaten by highschool
creationists on the subject. Evolution is teaching ignorance.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.

User: "WCB"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	18 Aug 2005 03:49:03 PM

wrote:

Anybody who goes into a philosphical tailspin for use of the word
decision outside a human brain, would do badly in anticipating
decisions falling in nature generally.

No doubt about it, Augray would be severely beaten by highschool
creationists on the subject. Evolution is teaching ignorance.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Religion and creationism. Ignorance walking hand in hand with
stupidity.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	18 Aug 2005 12:10:48 PM

On 18 Aug 2005 08:49:37 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:

Anybody who goes into a philosphical tailspin for use of the word
decision outside a human brain, would do badly in anticipating
decisions falling in nature generally.

No doubt about it, Augray would be severely beaten by highschool
creationists on the subject. Evolution is teaching ignorance.

creationism is teaching fanaticism.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	17 Aug 2005 09:57:27 AM

On 17 Aug 2005 07:14:18 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:

I said that scientists should incorporate a historical view in terms of
decisions into science, not that they should include God's purpose.

whatever this means. science is cumulative. it builds on others' work.
it is, by definition, historical.

That is surely enough when we can point to a decision at which the
likelyhood of some KIND of organisms coming to be was set, and later
decisions to specify the exact appearance. That sort of thinking is
what creationism is all about, and evolutionists do not have it, still
further they seek to deny decisions in emotions even.

why is it necessary? this is too vague. natural selection is a
decision maker, but not an exact one. there are many instances in
science where predictions are not exact. if you can't accept it,
perhaps you'd be happy in a more exact field like astrology

Let's have a test on it, test highschool creationists vs college
graduated evolutionary biologists on their knowledge about decision.

Testing:
1. their knowledge of any decisions in the universe
2. their awareness of, and application of knowledge about decisions
3. their religious knowledge to talk meaningfully about the identity of
the owners of decisions

more meaningless palaver. if 'decisions', whatever they are, were
necessary in science, they would have been incorporated. as shelby
foote pointed out, science is the single most successful idea ever
developed by the human race. your 'modification' is nothing more than
political correctness.

The graduates would be beaten, obviously.

I would never hire an evolutionist for some job like a stockbroker, or
politician, or sports, or any job in which a keyed in sense of
decisions is important.

ROFLMAO!! stockbroker as an exact decision maker???

I'm sure that when I pass the football to an evolutionist, he would
just stand there and go into a philosphical discourse doubting the
existence of free will,

funny, in my entire scientific career, 'free will' was never
discussed.
please tell me where i can find a 'free will' meter so i can measure
it. if it's scientific as you say it is, it can be measured.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.

User: ""
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	18 Aug 2005 06:13:45 AM

Bob wrote:

On 17 Aug 2005 07:14:18 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'm sure that when I pass the football to an evolutionist, he would
just stand there and go into a philosphical discourse doubting the
existence of free will,

Shoot the ball into the net!
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	12 Aug 2005 10:29:33 PM

Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:

david ford wrote:

Kevin, how do you account for the origin of the recorded-in-DNA/
genetic _instructions_ within:
a human? a cyanobacterium? the first biological lifeform?

Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker_ (NY: W.W. Norton &
Company), 332+pp. On 111:
....DNA whose coded characters spell out specific
instructions for building willow trees that will shed a
new generation of downy seeds. Those fluffy specks
are, literally, spreading instructions for making
themselves.... It is raining instructions out there; it's
raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-
spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is
the plain truth. It couldn't be any plainer if it were
raining floppy discs.

I think that you get taken in too much by flowery language (such as your
Dawkins quote). The genetic sequence in any organism but the first is an
errored copy of the sequence in its immediate ancestors. Thinking of
them as "instructions" gets you wrapped up in design metaphors that
ultimately cloud your thinking and corrupt your logic.

"Thinking of them [genetic sequences in organisms] as 'instructions'
gets you wrapped up in design metaphors that ultimately cloud your
thinking and corrupt your logic."
Do you disagree with any of the characterizations here?:
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ear falsely appears to be engineer(s') workproduct
Stevens, S. S. and Fred Warshofsky. 1980. _Sound and
Hearing_ (Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books), 200pp.
On 38, the section "The Ear: Masterpiece of Engineering":
Of all the organs of the body, few accomplish as much
in so little space as the ear. If an engineer were to
duplicate its function, he would have to compress into
approximately one cubic inch (16 cm^3) a sound system
that included an impedance matcher, a wide-range
mechanical analyzer, a mobile relay-and-amplification
unit, a multichannel transducer to convert mechanical
energy to electrical energy, a system to maintain a
delicate hydraulic balance and an internal two-way
communications system. Even if he could perform this
miracle of miniaturization, he probably could not hope
to match the ear's performance. It can set itself to hear
the low throb of a foghorn at one end of its range and
the piercing wail of a jet engine at the other end. It can
make the fine distinction between the music played by
the violin and the viola sections of a symphony
orchestra. It can reject the hubbub of a cocktail party
while picking out a single familiar voice. Even during
sleep the ear functions with incredible efficiency.
Because the brain can interpret and select signals passed
to it by the ear, a man can sleep soundly through noisy
traffic and the blaring of a neighbor's television set-- and
then awaken promptly at the gentle urging of a chime
alarm clock.
Paragraphs on 31:
HUMAN EARS are not much to look at. Some
seashells, which they vaguely resemble, are more
delicately shaped and more appealingly colored. Most
animals can swivel their outer ears to locate the source
of a sound; the few humans who can move their outer
ears at all use their skill mainly to amuse children.
Yet behind these unprepossessing flaps of skin and
cartilage lie structures of such delicacy that they shame
the most skillful craftsman, of such reliable automatic
operation that they inspire awe in the most ingenious
engineer. The outer ear extends only as far as the
eardrum, a pressure-sensitive membrane. Beyond this
point lies the middle ear, in which three tiny bones
transmit and amplify the vibrations of the ear-drum.
And beyond the middle ear lies the inner ear, filled with
liquid and containing the most intricate structures of all:
the spiral-shaped cochlea, where sound is converted to
nerve impulses, and the semicircular canals, the organs
of our sense of balance.
Working together, the structures of the outer, middle
and inner ears perform acts of amazing range and
virtuosity. A sound so weak that it causes the eardrum
to vibrate less than the diameter of a hydrogen molecule
can be heard; a sound 10 million million times stronger
will not damage the hearing mechanism. Anyone with
normal hearing can locate the source of a sound by
hearing alone; a blind person can often use his ears to
detect an obstruction in his path by the echoes that
bounce off it. We recognize familiar voices, even when
blurred by the electrical distortions of the telephone. A
barking dog, a squealing tire, even a footstep-- each can
be identified if it is loud enough to be heard at all. With
no musical training, we can distinguish the note A
sounded on the piano from the same note played on a
violin-- and we hear not only the note itself but also the
combination of different tones peculiar to each
instrument that make up the note. In fact, a normal ear
discriminates among some 400,000 sounds.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

That's why you
can't distinguish things like characters in a book (which indeed has a
designer and a purpose) from sequences in the genetic code (which has no
purpose at all).

Do you agree with this?:
If a person were to receive a 1-way monologue having a lengthy
meaning-laden sequence of characters, it'd be reasonable and logical
for that person to infer that mind/ intelligence was responsible for
the origination of that meaningful sequence.
Is it the case that the genetic coding for a human heart "has no
purpose at all"?
Is it the case that a human liver "has no purpose at all"?
Is it the case that the genetic coding for a human heart has no
_function_ at all?
Is it the case that a human liver has no _function_ at all?
With what, if anything, in this Oparin do you disagree?:
Oparin, A. I. 1962. _Life: Its Nature, Origin and
Development_ (New York: Academic Press Inc., Publishers),
translated from the Russian by Ann Synge, 207pp. Three
paragraphs on 12-13:
Thus the universal 'purposiveness' of the organisation of
living beings is an objective and self-evident fact which
cannot be ignored by any thoughtful student of nature. The
rightness or wrongness of the definition of life advanced by
us, and also of many others, depends on what interpretation
one gives to the word 'purposiveness' and what one
believes to be its essential nature and origin.
The idealists see this 'purposiveness' as the fulfilment of
some predetermined plan of a deity or 'universal intellect'.
The materialists, on the other hand, use the expression (for
lack of a better one) as the shortest way of characterising
the direction of the organisation of the whole living system
towards its self-preservation and self-reproduction under
given environmental conditions, as well as to describe the
suitability of the structure of the separate parts of the living
system to the most efficient and harmonious performance
of those vitally necessary functions which the particular
part subserves.
The extremely highly developed adaptation of the structure
of the individual organs to the performance of their
functions and the general 'purposiveness' of the whole
organisation of life is seen to be extremely precise even on
a very superficial acquaintance with higher living things.
As we have already pointed out, it was noticed a long time
ago and found expression in the Aristotelian 'entelechy'. It
had been considered to be essentially mystical and
supernatural until Darwin gave a rational, materialistic
explanation of the way in which this 'purposiveness' arose
in higher organisms by means of natural selection.
If you like, I will present some similar statements from
_Nature's Purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in
Biology_, edited by Colin Allen, Marc Bekoff, and George
Lauder (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1998), 597pp.

The phenotype of an organism is a side-effect, not the
purpose, of its genetic structure.

I'm not willing to select among the different theories of how the first
replicating molecule was formed. I'm not competent to.

Do you think that at least one of "the different theories of how the
first replicating molecule was formed" is correct?

I will say that
simple logic implies that theories that rely on natural processes to
create a molecule are more likely to be correct than one that needs to
postulate a mechanism to create an intelligent, creative power that then
created and designed the first replicating molecule.

Simple logic implies that theories that rely on totally-mindless-at
-every-level-processes to generate the meaning-laden sequence of Roman
alphabet characters in _Vestiges_ are more likely to be correct than
both:
a) theories that postulate a mechanism to create an intelligent,
creative power that then created/ designed the meaning-laden sequence
of characters in _Vestiges_,
and
b) theories that postulate an existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist
intelligent, creative power that created/ designed the meaning-laden
sequence of characters in _Vestiges_.
.

User: "Deadrat"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	12 Aug 2005 10:52:16 PM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1123903773.657478.84090@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>

Meaning of meaning-laden? Meaning of meaningful?

Is it the case that the genetic coding for a human heart "has no
purpose at all"?
Is it the case that a human liver "has no purpose at all"?

These organs have functions. Meaning of "purpose"?
<snip>

Who is the "existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intelligent, creative
power"?
How does he operate?
Deadrat
.

User: "Kevin Wayne Williams"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	13 Aug 2005 07:04:07 AM

david ford wrote:
[tedious repetition snipped]
When will you explain the correlation you apparently see between a
book and a cell?
KWW
.

User: "Icarus"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	08 Aug 2005 06:49:04 AM

david ford wrote:
....

The "simplest" bacterial
cell is tremendously complicated

.... which is only to be expected, since bacterial cells are the product of 4
billion years or so of evolution, just as we are.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	08 Aug 2005 12:55:18 PM

Icarus wrote:

david ford wrote:

...

The "simplest" bacterial
cell is tremendously complicated

... which is only to be expected, since bacterial cells are the product of 4
billion years or so of evolution, just as we are.

Meaning of "evolution"?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
What are 4 things that also are "only to be expected" using your line
of reasoning?
The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
"bacterial cells are the product of 4 billion years or so of evolution"
When did "bacterial cells" originate on earth-- about 0.5 billion years
ago?
By what means-- i.e. _how_-- did "bacterial cells" originate?
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
.

User: "Icarus"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	08 Aug 2005 07:11:46 PM

david ford wrote:

Icarus wrote:

david ford wrote:

...

The "simplest" bacterial
cell is tremendously complicated

... which is only to be expected, since bacterial cells are
the product of 4 billion years or so of evolution, just as we
are.

Meaning of "evolution"?

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40indivi
dual.net

What are 4 things that also are "only to be expected" using
your line of reasoning?

Which 'line of reasoning' is that? I pointed out that the implication
of your argument is invalid. You cannot hold up the example of a
'simple' bacterial cell which is alive today and imply a comparison
with life that existed in the early history of the Earth. Today's
bacteria have had 4 billion years in which to evolve complexity, just
as our species has.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
"bacterial cells are the product of 4 billion years or so of
evolution" When did "bacterial cells" originate on earth--
about 0.5 billion years ago?

If life originated on Earth about 4 billion years ago (give or take a
few hundred million), and everything alive now is descended from
whatever was alive at that time, then everything alive now is the
product of that 4 billion years of evolution.

By what means-- i.e. _how_-- did "bacterial cells" originate?

No-one knows, but probably as a result of abiogenesis and evolution.

On the Origin of Life

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40indivi
dual.net
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	08 Aug 2005 10:35:17 PM

Icarus wrote:

david ford wrote:

Icarus wrote:

david ford wrote:
...

The "simplest" bacterial
cell is tremendously complicated

... which is only to be expected, since bacterial cells are
the product of 4 billion years or so of evolution, just as we
are.

Meaning of "evolution"?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net

What are 4 things that also are "only to be expected" using
your line of reasoning?

Which 'line of reasoning' is that?

You stated that the 'simplest' bacterial cell is tremendously
complicated, "which is only to be expected, since bacterial cells are
the product of 4 billion years or so of" something I'm still waiting
for your definition of.
In reply, I'm asking what for other expectations are provided for by
that something.
I also await your definition of [I]"evolution."

I pointed out that the implication
of your argument is invalid. You cannot hold up the example of a
'simple' bacterial cell which is alive today and imply a comparison
with life that existed in the early history of the Earth. Today's
bacteria have had 4 billion years in which to evolve complexity, just
as our species has.

According to
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html
"Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize.
Morphologies in the group have remained much the same for billions of
years...."
Some other living fossil URLs are
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/b acteria/bacteriafr.html
http://www.discoverwest.com.au /hablin.html
http://faculty.weber.edu/bdatt ilo/fossils/notes/precamb.html
BTW, here's a geologic timeline:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/h elp/timeform.html
Something that can fabricate copies of itself has got to be complicated
to carry out such fabrications. Do you agree with me and Cairns-Smith
about this, or disagree?
Do you agree with Cairns-Smith that biology exhibits an
appearance of having been the result of
[Cairns-Smith]"clever, complicated engineering"?
Do you agree with Cairns-Smith that [Cairns-Smith]"the
workings of all life on the Earth are seen to be fabulously
complex and sophisticated on the molecular scale"?
Do you agree with Cairns-Smith that [Cairns-Smith]"present-
day organisms are manifestly pieces of 'high technology'"?
Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1985. _Seven Clues to the Origin of
Life: A Scientific Detective Story_ (Great Britain:
Cambridge University Press), 131pp. A paragraph on 22:
This is perhaps the most technical chapter in the book
(although it is not that bad). Some readers may want
just to skim it (or skip all but this page if they must),
taking on trust the main burden of argument that it
presents-- that the workings of all life on the Earth are
seen to be fabulously complex and sophisticated on the
molecular scale. Present-day organisms are manifestly
pieces of 'high technology', and what is more seem to be
necessarily so.
On 63, 64:
The 'high-tech' approach is quite different. Here the
whole idea is that an overall function (say personal
transport) is achieved through a collaboration of
diverse components (things like pistons, rubber
tyres, spark plugs, a tank of highly inflammable
liquid...). ....designers of efficient machines will
almost invariably choose 'high-tech': they will
choose designs that by and large do not work until
fully assembled.
On 29, a sentence and three paragraphs:
An _E. coli_ just is a complicated machine too, and I
think that _any_ free-living nucleic-acid-based forms of
life would have to be.
Take just part of our system-- the automatic protein
synthesiser. Any such machinery, however it is made,
is surely going to be clever, complicated engineering;
because it is a complicated and difficult job that has
to be done.
Ask any organic chemist how long it takes to put
together a small protein, say one with 100 amino acids
in it. Or go and look up the recipe for such an operation
as it is written out in scientific journals. You will find
pages and pages of tightly written instructions, couched
in terms that assume your expertise in handling
laboratory apparatus and require you to use many rather
specialised and well-purified chemical reagents and
solvents. And the result of following such instructions?
If you are lucky a few thousandths of a gram of product
from kilograms of starting materials.
Or go and read all the details and examine the
engineering drawings for a laboratory machine that can
build protein chains automatically. (If you want to buy
one it will cost you more than a video-recorder.) You
will be impressed by how clever such machines are--
and not surprised that _E. coli_'s machine is clever too.
It would have to be, wouldn't it?

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
"bacterial cells are the product of 4 billion years or so of
evolution" When did "bacterial cells" originate on earth--
about 0.5 billion years ago?

Meaning of "evolution"?
Are you saying that life originated only once, and not 2 or 3 or 4 or 5
etc. times?
If 'yes,' how do you know that?
Are living fossils "the product of that 4 billion years of" the
something I await your definition of?
"everything alive now is descended from whatever was alive at that
time"
Does this "whatever was alive at that time" have a name(s)? If 'yes,'
what?
Do you think humans are "descended from" cyanobacteria?

By what means-- i.e. _how_-- did "bacterial cells" originate?

No-one knows, but probably as a result of abiogenesis and evolution.

Meaning of "evolution"?
Do some people "kno[w]" that "bacterial cells" originated partly "as a
result of abiogenesis"?
If 'yes,' who? And how do they know this?

On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net

User: "Icarus"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	09 Aug 2005 07:17:58 PM

david ford wrote:

Icarus wrote:

david ford wrote:

Icarus wrote:

david ford wrote:
...

The "simplest" bacterial
cell is tremendously complicated

... which is only to be expected, since bacterial cells are
the product of 4 billion years or so of evolution, just as
we are.

Meaning of "evolution"?

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40indivi
dual.net

What are 4 things that also are "only to be expected" using
your line of reasoning?

Which 'line of reasoning' is that?

The process that produced things as complex as us, i.e. evolution.

In reply, I'm asking what for other expectations are provided
for by that something.

Speciation.
Convergence.
Divergence.
Extinction.

I also await your definition of [I]"evolution."

Descent with modification.

I pointed out that the implication
of your argument is invalid. You cannot hold up the example
of a 'simple' bacterial cell which is alive today and imply a
comparison with life that existed in the early history of the
Earth. Today's bacteria have had 4 billion years in which to
evolve complexity, just as our species has.

Disagree.

Do you agree with Cairns-Smith that biology exhibits an
appearance of having been the result of
[Cairns-Smith]"clever, complicated engineering"?

Disagree; That implies intelligence. Life exhibits complexity,
functionality etc., but not (as far as I'm aware) intelligent design.

Do you agree with Cairns-Smith that [Cairns-Smith]"the
workings of all life on the Earth are seen to be fabulously
complex and sophisticated on the molecular scale"?

Disagree. I'm not familiar with 'all life on Earth' (both extant and
extinct). Are you?

Do you agree with Cairns-Smith that [Cairns-Smith]"present-
day organisms are manifestly pieces of 'high technology'"?

Disagree; That implies intelligence.

Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1985. _Seven Clues to the Origin of
Life: A Scientific Detective Story_ (Great Britain:
Cambridge University Press), 131pp. A paragraph on 22:
This is perhaps the most technical chapter in the book
(although it is not that bad). Some readers may want
just to skim it (or skip all but this page if they must),
taking on trust the main burden of argument that it
presents-- that the workings of all life on the Earth are
seen to be fabulously complex and sophisticated on the
molecular scale. Present-day organisms are manifestly
pieces of 'high technology', and what is more seem to be
necessarily so.

On 63, 64:
The 'high-tech' approach is quite different. Here the
whole idea is that an overall function (say personal
transport) is achieved through a collaboration of
diverse components (things like pistons, rubber
tyres, spark plugs, a tank of highly inflammable
liquid...). ....designers of efficient machines will
almost invariably choose 'high-tech': they will
choose designs that by and large do not work until
fully assembled.

On 29, a sentence and three paragraphs:
An _E. coli_ just is a complicated machine too, and I
think that _any_ free-living nucleic-acid-based forms of
life would have to be.

Take just part of our system-- the automatic protein
synthesiser. Any such machinery, however it is made,
is surely going to be clever, complicated engineering;
because it is a complicated and difficult job that has
to be done.

Ask any organic chemist how long it takes to put
together a small protein, say one with 100 amino acids
in it. Or go and look up the recipe for such an operation
as it is written out in scientific journals. You will
find pages and pages of tightly written instructions,
couched in terms that assume your expertise in handling
laboratory apparatus and require you to use many rather
specialised and well-purified chemical reagents and
solvents. And the result of following such instructions?
If you are lucky a few thousandths of a gram of product
from kilograms of starting materials.

Or go and read all the details and examine the
engineering drawings for a laboratory machine that can
build protein chains automatically. (If you want to buy
one it will cost you more than a video-recorder.) You
will be impressed by how clever such machines are--
and not surprised that _E. coli_'s machine is clever too.
It would have to be, wouldn't it?

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
"bacterial cells are the product of 4 billion years or so of
evolution" When did "bacterial cells" originate on earth--
about 0.5 billion years ago?

If life originated on Earth about 4 billion years ago (give
or take a few hundred million), and everything alive now is
descended from whatever was alive at that time, then
everything alive now is the product of that 4 billion years
of evolution.

Meaning of "evolution"?

Descent with modification.

Are you saying that life originated only once, and not 2 or 3
or 4 or 5 etc. times?

No, I'm not saying that.

If 'yes,' how do you know that?

Are living fossils "the product of that 4 billion years of" the
something I await your definition of?

No, they would be the product of however many years of evolution
elapsed up to their existence.

"everything alive now is descended from whatever was alive at
that time"
Does this "whatever was alive at that time" have a name(s)?

No.

If 'yes,' what?
Do you think humans are "descended from" cyanobacteria?

No.

By what means-- i.e. _how_-- did "bacterial cells" originate?

No-one knows, but probably as a result of abiogenesis and
evolution.

Meaning of "evolution"?

Descent with modification.

Do some people "kno[w]" that "bacterial cells" originated
partly "as a result of abiogenesis"?

No, people do not 'know' that. It's a theory.

If 'yes,' who? And how do they know this?

On the Origin of Life

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40indivi
dual.net
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: This correct in 1930? in 1940?	06 Sep 2005 11:00:55 AM

Icarus wrote:

david ford wrote:

Icarus wrote:

david ford wrote:

Icarus wrote:

david ford wrote:
...

The "simplest" bacterial
cell is tremendously complicated

... which is only to be expected, since bacterial cells are
the product of 4 billion years or so of evolution, just as
we are.

Meaning of "evolution"?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net

What are 4 things that also are "only to be expected" using
your line of reasoning?

Which 'line of reasoning' is that?

The process that produced things as complex as us, i.e. evolution.

1. So you stated that:
the 'simplest' bacterial cell is tremendously complicated, which is
only to be expected, since bacterial cells are the product of 4 billion
years or so of the (same) process that produced things as complex as us
humans.
Was intelligence/ mind involved in any way with the origination and
operation of this "process"?
Could this "process" have given rise to the meaningful sequence of
alphabet characters present in _Vestiges of the Natural History of
Creation: With a Sequel_ (1858)?
How do you know that this "process... produced things as complex as
us"-- upon what basis/ grounds do you think that?
Do you agree with this Simpson?:
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.

In reply, I'm asking what for other expectations are provided
for by that something.

Speciation.
Convergence.
Divergence.
Extinction.

2. What's "convergence"?
Re: "extinction," do you agree with item (3) of this Hsu?:
Hsu, Kenneth J. 1986. "Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14:532-4.
Hsu was with the Geological Institute, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland.
Entire abstract:
Darwin's three mistakes were that (1) he dismissed mass
extinctions as artifacts of an imperfect geological record;
(2) he assumed that species diversity, like individuals of a
given species, tends to increase exponentially with time;
and (3) he considered biotic interactions the major cause
of species extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory
propounded in his book _On the Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_ (Darwin, 1859),
which has been adopted by many as the scientific basis of
their social philosophies.
The article's last two sentences state, [Hsu]"We have had enough of the
Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor has no
clothes.'"
about Hsu
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

I also await your definition of [I]"evolution."

Descent with modification.

3. By what method(s) does this "modification" occur?
Was intelligence/ mind involved in any way with the origination and
operation of this "descent with modification"?

I pointed out that the implication
of your argument is invalid. You cannot hold up the example
of a 'simple' bacterial cell which is alive today and imply a
comparison with life that existed in the early history of the
Earth. Today's bacteria have had 4 billion years in which to
evolve complexity, just as our species has.

Disagree.

4. Do you agree with the Neumann conclusion here?:
Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism
news:dford3-1124167154.817991.159730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
....question: What are the _fewest_ decisions
that a machine needs to make in order for it to
assemble itself? Not too long ago, a famous
twentieth-century mathematician, John von Neumann,
asked the same question. He discovered
mathematically that a machine would need to make
about fifteen hundred correct decisions, one after the
other without error, in order to reproduce itself.2

Do you agree with Cairns-Smith that biology exhibits an
appearance of having been the result of
[Cairns-Smith]"clever, complicated engineering"?

Disagree; That implies intelligence. Life exhibits complexity,
functionality etc., but not (as far as I'm aware) intelligent design.

Do you agree with Cairns-Smith that [Cairns-Smith]"the
workings of all life on the Earth are seen to be fabulously
complex and sophisticated on the molecular scale"?

Disagree. I'm not familiar with 'all life on Earth' (both extant and
extinct). Are you?

5. No. Do you agree with this?:
the workings of all life that humans have closely studied are observed
to be [Cairns-Smith]"fabulously complex and sophisticated on the
molecular scale"

Do you agree with Cairns-Smith that [Cairns-Smith]"present-
day organisms are manifestly pieces of 'high technology'"?

Disagree; That implies intelligence.

6. Do you agree with any of these characterizations?:
Benyus, Janine M. 1997. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature
(NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc.), 308pp. Benyus is an
evolutionist/ blindwatchmakingist. A paragraph on 219:
If the system proves practical, Birge believes holographic memory
could play an important role in robot vision, artificial
intelligence, optical correlators, and other areas starved for
complex pattern-processing capabilities. "This is an area where
we could completely blow away semiconductors," he says. "We're
going to be able to have the equivalent of twenty million
characters of associative memory on a single film. You simply
couldn't build a semiconductor associative memory with that many
connections." And yet, I think to myself, an associative memory
with many, many more connections has already been designed, and
it's balanced on the stalk of my neck at this very minute.
The human brain is an organ far more powerful and versatile than any
computer humans have ever made.
The immensely complex human brain doesn't make sense except in the
light of the belief that it came into existence via
totally-non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level processes.
The immensely complex human brain makes sense in the light of the
belief that it came into existence via intelligence-directed
processes.
Tomlin, E.W.F. 1977. "Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory" in _The
Encyclopaedia of Ignorance: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About
the Unknown_, Ronald Duncan and Miranda Weston-Smith, eds. (NY: Pocket
Books), 443pp., 228-34. The author info reads, "Fellow of the Royal
Society of Literature. A full-time writer and editor who has combined
for many years a career in the public service with authorship of books
on philosophical and literary subjects. Former British Council
Representative and Cultural Attache in Turkey, Japan and France and
Professor of Philosophy and Literature at the University of Nice. Has
a strong interest in the philosophical implications of the Life
Sciences." On 231, the last half of a paragraph:
Granted, only man _behaves_ in the explicit sense; but since such
behaviour or conscious activity, guided by thematism, entails the
use of organic tools, these tools themselves must have been
developed according to some form of thematism. They cannot have
come into being by a series of mutations due to mechanical faults
of copying: and the same applies to the brain and the nervous
system. These organs are the means whereby higher evolution is
directed: to describe [I think he wants 'to ascribe'] their
development to the play of blind forces is to suspend rational
judgment and to betray the cause of science. It is legitimate to
go further and to call it, with Karl Stern, "crazy". Stern adds:
"I do not mean crazy in the sense of slangy invective but rather
in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed, such a view of
the history of the world has much in common with certain aspects
of schizophrenic thinking".
Stern, _The Flight from Woman_ (1966), 290.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
"bacterial cells are the product of 4 billion years or so of
evolution" When did "bacterial cells" originate on earth--
about 0.5 billion years ago?

If life originated on Earth about 4 billion years ago (give
or take a few hundred million), and everything alive now is
descended from whatever was alive at that time, then
everything alive now is the product of that 4 billion years
of evolution.