| 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: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
18 Aug 2005 06:19:16 AM |
|
|
On 17 Aug 2005 18:54:22 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 06:45:36 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
The clear words of Darwin:
"This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of
injurious variations, I call Natural Selection." (The main definition
of natural selection in Origin of Species, Darwin)
Q So is rejection of favourable variations natural selection?
A No
Q Is Darwin's definition of natural selection illegitemately goalbased
towards optimal fitness?
A Yes
Taking the first two points as accurate (and ignoring the baggage you try
to load into them) *how* does the third point about "illegitimate goalbased
optimal fitness" follow? Note that simply pointing to Ariew and Matthen's
article isn't good enough, since Ariew *himself* has denied that was what
his article was saying.
Supposedly Ariew cut the word "valueladen" from the paper. He did not
cut "teleological" and "illegitimate" as well, as far as I know.
No Nando. Since you have been shown not to understand what Ariew and
Mattens were talking about (by Ariew himself) you can't hide behind them.
Arguments from authority are a logical fallacy to begin with, but get
especially bad where there is no reason to believe the arguer has the
authority on his side. It gets worse yet when all you are doing is
parroting the bare words and are unable to explain what you mean by them
(which we already know doesn't necessarily mean what Ariew and Mattens
meant by them).
Also, Ariew and Mattens were not specifically talking about Darwin's
formulation like you are. Explain why *Darwin's* version is "teleological"
and "illegitimate" or stand exposed as a mindless quote miner who can do
nothing but use Google to pluck words out of the air senselessly.
I've explained it more then 10 times
Bull. You may have made the bald assertion that many times but you have
*never* explained your assertion, just as you fail to do so below.
already how it is illegitemately
goalbased. I simply must refer you to Ariew and Matthen's paper, go and
study it.
Conceding defeat probably *is* you best option.
Show, with all logical steps, where Darwin's formulation requires "optimal
fitness". Point out what, exactly, is "goalbased" in Darwin's formulation
and, of course, show how any such aspect of his formulation is
"illegitimate".
What is the bloody problem? Darwin defines beneficial variations being
lost outside of natural selection.
In other words, he describes fully what his concept of selection is,
something you have been completely unable to do, but never mind . . .
Therefore natural selection is
constricted to working towards the optimal,
This is just the same *assertion* as you made above, not an explaination,
much less a demonstration of the claim.
the optimal where
benificial preservation are preserved and injurous variations lost.
If you keep making such circular arguments, you are going to disappear up
your own butt. You are simply (unjustifiably) *defining* Darwin's
formulation as "the optimal" instead of showing that is what Darwin
intended or his fomulation required.
How does the "preservation" of beneficial traits (as Darwin uses the term,
meaning *not* "optimal" preservation, since he allows for the loss of
beneficial mutations) and the loss of injurious ones involve working
towards "optimal" fitness? Give a definition of "optimal fitness" as you
are using it.
The
constriction is illegitimate, the result is goalbased (and valueladen).
Sadly for you, parroting stuff we already know you don't understand is
about as convincing as you get.
If you can't do this, all you have been doing is importing hot air from
Nandoland.
[...]
Maybe later I'll take up the rest of the amusing blather in your post but
let's see first if you can demonstrate to any lurkers that you are even
worth the bother.
The other possibility being that you don't understand anything, and are
just waiting for a consensus to develop, which you will adopt without
understanding, but memorize the rationality given.
Of course, you misunderstand why "consensus" is considered important in
science and any other system that aspires to trustworthy knowledge.
Consensus makes sure that the issue has been considered by *many* people
with different views, knowledge and abilities. It is a process that
removes, as much as humanly possible, the very bias *you* consistently
display.
But, I'll tell you what, Nando, I'll stop considering the opinions of
experts and adopt your "common sense" version of reality the minute you
come out from under the anesthetic after the removal of your gall bladder
by an auto mechanic using nothing but his common sense to guide him.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions
have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die
before reproducing their kind.
- Willard van Ormand Quine -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
18 Aug 2005 10:32:21 AM |
|
|
Ariew retracted the word valueladen. There was no mistake in my
interpretation of the paper, the mistake (political mistake...) was of
Ariew and Matthen to include the word.
That you now also wish to exclude the words illegitemate and
teleological is pure politics. You have no understanding of the issue.
beneficial mutations are preserved <> beneficial mutations are
preserved and lost
They are not the same. It is essential that beneficial mutations
getting lost falls *within* the definition of natural selection, for
the conception not to be teleological towards optimal fitness.
Consensus is much compromise, it does not much remove bias, for each
person to be responsible for their own views removes bias.
It's clear that you don't need more explanation, you just need a
face-saving transition to the new definition. Tough luck, the new
definition is a mere logical theorem, go and write that in the papers
when creation vs evolution is at issue.
I read it in the Washington post, from memory "Darwin's theory of
natural selection, the force that..."
Should be changed to:
"Ariew and Matthens theory of natural selection, the logical theorem
that..."
HAHAHA, a lame logical theorem
"creationist Syamsu's theory of natural selection, that the event of
reproduction shapes the population of organisms"
HAHAHA, try saving face with that.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Aug 2005 01:54:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Ariew retracted the word valueladen. There was no mistake in my
interpretation of the paper, the mistake (political mistake...) was of
Ariew and Matthen to include the word.
That you now also wish to exclude the words illegitemate and
teleological is pure politics. You have no understanding of the issue.
beneficial mutations are preserved <> beneficial mutations are
preserved and lost
They are not the same. It is essential that beneficial mutations
getting lost falls *within* the definition of natural selection, for
the conception not to be teleological towards optimal fitness.
In trying to make sense of this, I think that you must somehow
mistakenly (it is a common creationist mistake) believe that the
"beneficial" of "beneficial mutation" is an inherent and immutable
property of a specific sequence rather than conditional property of a
mutation. The "beneficialness" of a mutation must be *determined* by
virtue of that mutation having a significant positive effect on
reproductive success relative to its alternative (w.t.) allele in the
local environment in which such a adjective is used. That is, the term
"beneficial" is a conditional adjective that only applies in a
particular specified environment relative to a particular specified
alternative. If you change either the environment or alternative to
which the mutation is being compared, you *may* have to change the
descriptive adjective (to either 'selectively neutral' or
'detrimental'). It is also possible for there to be *quantitative*
differences (from, say, strongly beneficial to weakly beneficial) in
different environments.
The only way that you can determine whether a trait is 'beneficial',
'selectively neutral', or 'detrimental' is to actually observationally
determine that the mutation has that effect in the environment that is
specified and relative to the specified alternative. Thus, when you
say a mutation is beneficial, I *assume* that you understand that you
(or others) have actually determined that, in that environment and
against that alternative, that mutation is, in fact, beneficial. And I
*assume* that you realize that you cannot automatically assume that
this mutation will be beneficial in every other possible environment or
relative to every other possible alternative.
Of course, that means that a better phrase is "survival of the fitter"
and that when "fittest" is used, it only refers to the best of a set of
specified alternatives in a specified environment and makes no claim
that this is "fittest" in a teleological, absolute, or end goal sense.
Such a "fittest" trait is only a conditionally "fittest" trait, the
conditions being the specified environment and the specified
alternatives. We cannot possibly know whether a trait will be the
"fittest" trait in *all possible* environments against *all possible*
alternatives. That is, we cannot make the terms 'beneficial',
'detrimental', or 'selectively neutral' inherent properties of gene
sequences or phenotypes.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
18 Aug 2005 08:21:51 PM |
|
|
On 18 Aug 2005 08:32:21 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ariew retracted the word valueladen. There was no mistake in my
interpretation of the paper, the mistake (political mistake...) was of
Ariew and Matthen to include the word.
So, being totally unable to explain how the preservation of beneficial
traits and the loss of injurious ones involve working towards "optimal"
fitness or to give a definition of "optimal fitness" as you are using it,
you attack instead, without the *slightest* evidence, the honesty and
integrity of the very people you first invoked as providing support for
your _idee fixe_.
You are a dishonest slug beneath even the contempt I held you in before.
As a self-proclaimed theist, you should be ashamed of bringing disrepute on
the truly religious.
That you now also wish to exclude the words illegitemate and
teleological is pure politics. You have no understanding of the issue.
The words are obviously beyond your meager capacity of understanding. All
you can do is waive them around like some witch doctor trying to scare away
the things that frighten him, in your case learning and honest inquiry.
The most you are capable of is the low cunning of a quote miner,
substituting base trickery for honest debate.
beneficial mutations are preserved <> beneficial mutations are
preserved and lost
They are not the same.
Yet Darwin explained both their preservation and loss far better than you
have ever been capable of. You have some bizarre idea that they should be
called by the same name despite the different nature of what they refer to
but the *name* doesn't matter if the explanation is there. If anyone has
no right to insist on a restricted terminology it is *you* with all your
non-standard usages of language!
It is essential that beneficial mutations
getting lost falls *within* the definition of natural selection, for
the conception not to be teleological towards optimal fitness.
And you can repeat this empty formalism until you are blue in the face (and
have) but that does *not* demonstrate it is true. It doesn't even explain
what it is supposed to mean. What *has* been demonstrated now for all to
see is that you *can't* defend your blather.
Consensus is much compromise, it does not much remove bias, for each
person to be responsible for their own views removes bias.
Again you misunderstand what consensus is, but that should be no surprise.
And if people could reliably remove their own bias, it wouldn't *be* bias.
Which you have just demonstrated in spades by spending weeks claiming
something you can't even explain to yourself!
It's clear that you don't need more explanation,
Well, whether I need it or not, it's clear I won't get it from you!
you just need a
face-saving transition to the new definition. Tough luck, the new
definition is a mere logical theorem, go and write that in the papers
when creation vs evolution is at issue.
As always, when you have made a fool of yourself, you retreat to
incoherence so no one can pin you down any more.
I read it in the Washington post, from memory "Darwin's theory of
natural selection, the force that..."
Typical Nando citation: on issues of science vaguely refer to the
Washington Post or, better yet, the "owner of evcforum".
Should be changed to:
"Ariew and Matthens theory of natural selection, the logical theorem
that..."
HAHAHA, a lame logical theorem
The reason you think logic is lame is that you are so unacquainted with it.
"creationist Syamsu's theory of natural selection, that the event of
reproduction shapes the population of organisms"
HAHAHA, try saving face with that.
Hey, Nando, you took up the challenge I posed: Either explain where
Darwin's formulation requires "optimal fitness"; point out what, exactly,
is "goalbased" in Darwin's formulation and show how any such aspect of his
formulation is "illegitimate" or stand exposed as the netloon everyone
thinks you are.
Guess what your utter failure means, Nando! The weird inappropriate
laughter is just icing on the cake.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.'
And God granted it.
- Voltaire -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Aug 2005 04:10:28 AM |
|
|
Gee, Ariew himself complained of personal attack in response to the
paper, as by people like you no doubt, but then having a higher
position. As before there is only one meaning to the word valueladen,
and that is to imply a preference, or goodness in this case, I made no
mistake in interpreting. And as before that it is a moral imperative,
also depends on self-identification in terms of natural selection.
I can hear the echo of a long history of Darwinist pseudoscience in
your words. So full of arrogant scientific certitude are you, beyond
all questioning.
Whatever rot you put out, here is the main definition of Darwin's
natural selection again:
"This principle by which beneficial mutations are preserved, and
injurous ones destroyed, I call natural selection." (C. Darwin, Origin
of Species)
Now you do a little fudge that above words also mean beneficial
mutations being destroyed by natural selection. But you're simply a
lying liar, liaaaarrr, liiiiiaaaar, pants on fiiiiire, liiiiaarrrr,
liiaaaaar, liiaaaar, liiiiaaaar, liiiaaaar, liiaaaar....... liar, liar,
liar, liar, liar
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Aug 2005 10:41:34 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Gee, Ariew himself complained of personal attack in response to the
paper, as by people like you no doubt, but then having a higher
position. As before there is only one meaning to the word valueladen,
and that is to imply a preference, or goodness in this case, I made no
mistake in interpreting. And as before that it is a moral imperative,
also depends on self-identification in terms of natural selection.
I can hear the echo of a long history of Darwinist pseudoscience in
your words. So full of arrogant scientific certitude are you, beyond
all questioning.
Whatever rot you put out, here is the main definition of Darwin's
natural selection again:
"This principle by which beneficial mutations are preserved, and
injurous ones destroyed, I call natural selection." (C. Darwin, Origin
of Species)
Now you do a little fudge that above words also mean beneficial
mutations being destroyed by natural selection.
No. New beneficial mutations can be lost by chance, not by natural
selection. If there were no chance (specifically chance due to the
decidedly non-infinite population size seen with any new mutation),
then *any* new beneficial mutation could only automatically increase in
frequency relative to the less favorable alternative. It is because a
new beneficial mutation is initially present in small numbers that
there is an opportunity for that beneficial mutation to be lost *by
chance*.
But you're simply a
lying liar, liaaaarrr, liiiiiaaaar, pants on fiiiiire, liiiiaarrrr,
liiaaaaar, liiaaaar, liiiiaaaar, liiiaaaar, liiaaaar....... liar, liar,
liar, liar, liar
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Aug 2005 02:31:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Gee, Ariew himself complained of personal attack in response to the
paper, as by people like you no doubt, but then having a higher
position. As before there is only one meaning to the word valueladen,
and that is to imply a preference, or goodness in this case, I made no
mistake in interpreting. And as before that it is a moral imperative,
also depends on self-identification in terms of natural selection.
I can hear the echo of a long history of Darwinist pseudoscience in
your words. So full of arrogant scientific certitude are you, beyond
all questioning.
Whatever rot you put out, here is the main definition of Darwin's
natural selection again:
"This principle by which beneficial mutations are preserved, and
injurous ones destroyed, I call natural selection." (C. Darwin, Origin
of Species)
Now you do a little fudge that above words also mean beneficial
mutations being destroyed by natural selection. But you're simply a
lying liar, liaaaarrr, liiiiiaaaar, pants on fiiiiire, liiiiaarrrr,
liiaaaaar, liiaaaar, liiiiaaaar, liiiaaaar, liiaaaar....... liar, liar,
liar, liar, liar
Someone needs to check the dosage on nando's medication.
However, if I get what nando is trying to say, is that beneficial
mutations are being being destroyed by natural selection. Where, oh
where, does this happen?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
21 Aug 2005 07:30:02 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com wrote:
Gee, Ariew himself complained of personal attack in response to the
paper, as by people like you no doubt, but then having a higher
position. As before there is only one meaning to the word valueladen,
and that is to imply a preference, or goodness in this case, I made no
mistake in interpreting. And as before that it is a moral imperative,
also depends on self-identification in terms of natural selection.
I can hear the echo of a long history of Darwinist pseudoscience in
your words. So full of arrogant scientific certitude are you, beyond
all questioning.
Whatever rot you put out, here is the main definition of Darwin's
natural selection again:
"This principle by which beneficial mutations are preserved, and
injurous ones destroyed, I call natural selection." (C. Darwin, Origin
of Species)
Now you do a little fudge that above words also mean beneficial
mutations being destroyed by natural selection. But you're simply a
lying liar, liaaaarrr, liiiiiaaaar, pants on fiiiiire, liiiiaarrrr,
liiaaaaar, liiaaaar, liiiiaaaar, liiiaaaar, liiaaaar....... liar, liar,
liar, liar, liar
Someone needs to check the dosage on nando's medication.
However, if I get what nando is trying to say, is that beneficial
mutations are being being destroyed by natural selection. Where, oh
where, does this happen?
That is the thrust of Nando's argument. I have asked him many times to
name just one species that this has happened to, without him ever
responding with an example. He simply refuses to face up to the obvious
conclusion that until he does name at least one such species, his idea
is just a speculative fairy tale.
--
shane
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
21 Aug 2005 06:51:32 AM |
|
|
In message <2sqNe.1412$M3.337@trnddc05>, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> writes
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com wrote:
Gee, Ariew himself complained of personal attack in response to the
paper, as by people like you no doubt, but then having a higher
position. As before there is only one meaning to the word valueladen,
and that is to imply a preference, or goodness in this case, I made no
mistake in interpreting. And as before that it is a moral imperative,
also depends on self-identification in terms of natural selection.
I can hear the echo of a long history of Darwinist pseudoscience in
your words. So full of arrogant scientific certitude are you, beyond
all questioning.
Whatever rot you put out, here is the main definition of Darwin's
natural selection again:
"This principle by which beneficial mutations are preserved, and
injurous ones destroyed, I call natural selection." (C. Darwin, Origin
of Species)
Now you do a little fudge that above words also mean beneficial
mutations being destroyed by natural selection. But you're simply a
lying liar, liaaaarrr, liiiiiaaaar, pants on fiiiiire, liiiiaarrrr,
liiaaaaar, liiaaaar, liiiiaaaar, liiiaaaar, liiaaaar....... liar, liar,
liar, liar, liar
Someone needs to check the dosage on nando's medication.
However, if I get what nando is trying to say, is that beneficial
mutations are being being destroyed by natural selection. Where, oh
where, does this happen?
As best I can make out, he wishes to include all differential
reproductive success under the head of natural selection, not just that
causally correlated with genotype.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 19/08/2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
21 Aug 2005 12:33:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:51:32 +0100, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <2sqNe.1412$M3.337@trnddc05>, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> writes
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com wrote:
Gee, Ariew himself complained of personal attack in response to the
paper, as by people like you no doubt, but then having a higher
position. As before there is only one meaning to the word valueladen,
and that is to imply a preference, or goodness in this case, I made no
mistake in interpreting. And as before that it is a moral imperative,
also depends on self-identification in terms of natural selection.
I can hear the echo of a long history of Darwinist pseudoscience in
your words. So full of arrogant scientific certitude are you, beyond
all questioning.
Whatever rot you put out, here is the main definition of Darwin's
natural selection again:
"This principle by which beneficial mutations are preserved, and
injurous ones destroyed, I call natural selection." (C. Darwin, Origin
of Species)
Now you do a little fudge that above words also mean beneficial
mutations being destroyed by natural selection. But you're simply a
lying liar, liaaaarrr, liiiiiaaaar, pants on fiiiiire, liiiiaarrrr,
liiaaaaar, liiaaaar, liiiiaaaar, liiiaaaar, liiaaaar....... liar, liar,
liar, liar, liar
Someone needs to check the dosage on nando's medication.
However, if I get what nando is trying to say, is that beneficial
mutations are being being destroyed by natural selection. Where, oh
where, does this happen?
As best I can make out, he wishes to include all differential
reproductive success under the head of natural selection, not just that
causally correlated with genotype.
No, that's not quite it (as far as Nando can be understood at all) or at
least not all of it. He thinks it is very important somehow that mutations
that might otherwise have been beneficial can be lost because the
individual carrying them gets killed by chance before it can reproduce. It
has something to do with his "idea" of "decisions" but he cannot put it
cogently, not having reached it in that manner in the first place.
He is not interested in differential reproductive success but only those
cases where there is no reproduction at all. He can't explain why it would
be important to science but not including it in the definition of "natural
selection" somehow leads to Naziism. (Ok, that's an exageration, but not
much.) It is supposedly "valueladen" not to include it in the definition
of NS but he can't explain how or why. All he can do is point to two
philosophers of science, Ariew and Matthen, who once used the term (in a
completely different sense than Nando uses it) in the same article where
they discussed the role of chance in evolution (before dropping the term in
their final article). That, of course, is all the connection Nando needs.
And, Lord knows, that is much, much more than I ever wanted to be able to
explain about Nando's thought processes.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Those who reject biological evolution do so, usually,
not out of reason, but out of unjustified vanity.
- Isaac Asimov -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
22 Aug 2005 01:37:29 AM |
|
|
I request that a university ethics commission consider issuing a
warning to the Darwinist discipline for possibly violating standards of
objectivity, by producing a biased goalbased theory, which biased goal
is commonly also expressed in a valueladen way of "best", "good", and
"optimal".
In the context of the history of racist Darwinian pseudoscience,
advocated and supported by a large proportion of respected scientists
within the Darwinist discipline, it can't be so that in disregard of
the lessons of history, the Darwinist discipline ignores apparently
meritable accusations of bias. They must resolve the issue of the
formulation of natural selection to a transparant conclusion.
In reference to Ariew and Matthen's paper, and various historians
comments on the rise of pseudobiological racism resulting from the
Darwinian revolution, such as Fischer, Gould, Gasman, Burleigh etc.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
22 Aug 2005 03:30:55 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I request that a university ethics commission consider issuing a
warning to the Darwinist discipline for possibly violating standards of
objectivity, by producing a biased goalbased theory, which biased goal
is commonly also expressed in a valueladen way of "best", "good", and
"optimal".
Define "valueladen." It's not in any of my dictionaries.
In the context of the history of racist Darwinian pseudoscience,
I'm sorry, but Darwinism is not racist. Try again.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
22 Aug 2005 06:39:58 AM |
|
|
On 21 Aug 2005 23:37:29 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
I request that a university ethics commission consider issuing a
warning to the Darwinist discipline
Nando, this is not helping your contention that you are not a netloon.
for possibly violating standards of
objectivity, by producing a biased goalbased theory, which biased goal
is commonly also expressed in a valueladen way of "best", "good", and
"optimal".
In the context of the history of racist Darwinian pseudoscience,
advocated and supported by a large proportion of respected scientists
within the Darwinist discipline,
Claiming vast (and clearly false) conspiracies is not helping either.
it can't be so that in disregard of
the lessons of history, the Darwinist discipline ignores apparently
meritable accusations of bias. They must resolve the issue of the
formulation of natural selection to a transparant conclusion.
The problem is, Nando, is that we can't make science "transparent" to every
simpleton, especially when they are bound and determined to misunderstand
it. But anyone with a modicum of intelligence, who studies it an open mind
free of _idees fixe_ will quickly see that evolutionary theory is not
"valueladen" in the sense you are using the term.
In reference to Ariew and Matthen's paper, and various historians
comments on the rise of pseudobiological racism resulting from the
Darwinian revolution, such as Fischer, Gould, Gasman, Burleigh etc.
Doesn't Dutch have verbs?
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.'
And God granted it.
- Voltaire -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
22 Aug 2005 10:02:16 AM |
|
|
Ariew and Matthen's paper is intolerant towards the current standard in
defining natural selection. It is not that they are providing an
alternative view which is also useful, they are saying the current
standard is wrong.
Now tell me how can for 150+ years one of the biggest theories in
biology contain an error? And an error in violation of objectivity no
less, not a small error I would say. Illegitemately goalbased, and then
even valueladen wordusage for that illegitemate goal.
It has got to be the many hotheaded atheists/materialists endemic in
the field, Huxley, Darwin himself, Haeckel, Dawkins etc. etc. The
hatemongering anti-creationism. The double denial of intelligence
inherent to the definition of natural selection, denying divine
intelligence, as well as artificial intelligence, by mere definition.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
22 Aug 2005 02:52:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
It has got to be the many hotheaded atheists/materialists endemic in
the field, Huxley, Darwin himself, Haeckel, Dawkins etc. etc. The
hatemongering anti-creationism.
No, when theists like you are properly identified as close-minded idiots who
are unable to formulate a coherent idea and who can't see farther than their
imagined god's *****, that is not hatemongering.
The double denial of intelligence
inherent to the definition of natural selection, denying divine
intelligence, as well as artificial intelligence, by mere definition.
So far the only thing you produced in support of your "divine intelligence"
is an old pathetic attempt to justify German National-Socialism with the
theiry of evolution, as well as a shitload of incoherent rambling about
"valueladen" nonsense.
In short, not only are you an idiot, you are a theist idiot, which is even
worse.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
23 Aug 2005 09:58:38 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:52:31 -0700, Charles & Mambo Duckman
<duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com wrote:
It has got to be the many hotheaded atheists/materialists endemic in
the field, Huxley, Darwin himself, Haeckel, Dawkins etc. etc. The
hatemongering anti-creationism.
No, when theists like you are properly identified as close-minded idiots who
are unable to formulate a coherent idea and who can't see farther than their
imagined god's *****, that is not hatemongering.
The double denial of intelligence
inherent to the definition of natural selection, denying divine
intelligence, as well as artificial intelligence, by mere definition.
So far the only thing you produced in support of your "divine intelligence"
is an old pathetic attempt to justify German National-Socialism with the
theiry of evolution, as well as a shitload of incoherent rambling about
"valueladen" nonsense.
In short, not only are you an idiot, you are a theist idiot, which is even
worse.
Do you know any Idiots that don't accept the beliefs of the local
religion? Not all theist may be Idiots, some appear to be fairly
bright. But an Idiot, that rejects a idea or beliefs held by his
neighbors?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
23 Aug 2005 11:59:11 AM |
|
|
robpar wrote:
It has got to be the many hotheaded atheists/materialists endemic in
the field, Huxley, Darwin himself, Haeckel, Dawkins etc. etc. The
hatemongering anti-creationism.
No, when theists like you are properly identified as close-minded idiots who
are unable to formulate a coherent idea and who can't see farther than their
imagined god's *****, that is not hatemongering.
The double denial of intelligence
inherent to the definition of natural selection, denying divine
intelligence, as well as artificial intelligence, by mere definition.
So far the only thing you produced in support of your "divine intelligence"
is an old pathetic attempt to justify German National-Socialism with the
theiry of evolution, as well as a shitload of incoherent rambling about
"valueladen" nonsense.
In short, not only are you an idiot, you are a theist idiot, which is even
worse.
Do you know any Idiots that don't accept the beliefs of the local
religion? Not all theist may be Idiots, some appear to be fairly
bright. But an Idiot, that rejects a idea or beliefs held by his
neighbors?
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but no, I'm not saying that idiots are
necessarily religious. The affliction affects everyone, although theists
seem to be more susceptible.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
23 Aug 2005 04:06:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:59:11 -0700, Charles & Mambo Duckman
<duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:
robpar wrote:
It has got to be the many hotheaded atheists/materialists endemic in
the field, Huxley, Darwin himself, Haeckel, Dawkins etc. etc. The
hatemongering anti-creationism.
No, when theists like you are properly identified as close-minded idiots who
are unable to formulate a coherent idea and who can't see farther than their
imagined god's *****, that is not hatemongering.
The double denial of intelligence
inherent to the definition of natural selection, denying divine
intelligence, as well as artificial intelligence, by mere definition.
So far the only thing you produced in support of your "divine intelligence"
is an old pathetic attempt to justify German National-Socialism with the
theiry of evolution, as well as a shitload of incoherent rambling about
"valueladen" nonsense.
In short, not only are you an idiot, you are a theist idiot, which is even
worse.
Do you know any Idiots that don't accept the beliefs of the local
religion? Not all theist may be Idiots, some appear to be fairly
bright. But an Idiot, that rejects a idea or beliefs held by his
neighbors?
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but no, I'm not saying that idiots are
necessarily religious. The affliction affects everyone, although theists
seem to be more susceptible.
I'll try to make it simpler. The less intelligent are much more
likely to believe almost anything, especially if it makes them feel
better. Like Jesus loves you, and is pleased when you pay your tithes,
and follow the rules of the church. He is especially pleased if you
force you more intelligent neighbor to accept the rules of the church.
And you know that the church speaks for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
20 Aug 2005 01:56:29 AM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124442628.007356.83400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gee, Ariew himself complained of personal attack in response to the
paper, as by people like you no doubt, but then having a higher
position. As before there is only one meaning to the word valueladen,
and that is to imply a preference, or goodness in this case, I made no
mistake in interpreting.
Not according to the author, who says that he intended no moral or
ethical implications.
Again, there is only one meaning to the word valueladen in this
context, it is implying a goodness, or preference. You have allowed
yourself to be deluded by J. Wilkins, and yourself, that some other
meaning, not defined in any dictionary whatsoever, was intended.
regards,
Mohammad Nor syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
20 Aug 2005 10:38:16 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124520989.939063.123740@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Deadrat wrote:
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124442628.007356.83400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gee, Ariew himself complained of personal attack in response to the
paper, as by people like you no doubt, but then having a higher
position. As before there is only one meaning to the word valueladen,
and that is to imply a preference, or goodness in this case, I made no
mistake in interpreting.
Not according to the author, who says that he intended no moral or
ethical implications.
Again, there is only one meaning to the word valueladen in this
context, it is implying a goodness, or preference. You have allowed
yourself to be deluded by J. Wilkins, and yourself, that some other
meaning, not defined in any dictionary whatsoever, was intended.
No. I emailed the author and asked him whether the words "value laden"
(which, for some reason you insist on eliding) imply a "goodness" in the
sense of morals or ethics *in the context of the argument of the paper*
He replied that they didn't. You may make as many vague references to
dictionaries as you want, but you have misunderstood the paper according
to one of the people who wrote it.
Now, you are free to make the absurd argument that you do. But stop
citing Ariew's paper as support for your position. You have misunderstood
the paper. I don't know a better person qualified to state this than one of
the authors. The "valueladen" argument is yours, not Ariew's.
Deadrat
regards,
Mohammad Nor syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
20 Aug 2005 02:12:32 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Deadrat wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1124442628.007356.83400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gee, Ariew himself complained of personal attack in response to the
paper, as by people like you no doubt, but then having a higher
position. As before there is only one meaning to the word valueladen,
and that is to imply a preference, or goodness in this case, I made no
mistake in interpreting.
Not according to the author, who says that he intended no moral or
ethical implications.
Again, there is only one meaning to the word valueladen in this
context, it is implying a goodness, or preference. You have allowed
yourself to be deluded by J. Wilkins, and yourself, that some other
meaning, not defined in any dictionary whatsoever, was intended.
Nor is there any word "valueladen" in the dictionary. But, if you say
that "valueladen" is synonymous with "goodness" or "preference," why
don't you just say that instead of using "valueladen" which is an
unknown concept since it is not a word?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
