| 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: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man |
05 Jul 2005 09:17:19 AM |
|
|
Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:13:12 -0700, Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
john_bode@my-deja.com wrote:
The concept is correct in the sense that all humans ultimately share
common ancestry. That this ancestry can be traced to the two specific
individuals named Adam and Eve is not so correct (there is evidence
that all modern humans are descended from a single common female
ancestor;
This wording is somewhat misleading. We all have a single female
ancestor in the *all* *female* line. She was *not* the sole female
ancestor of all living humans.
The same mitochondrial DNA is in males, too.
True, but it is not passed on. So we guys inherited ours from a
continuous line of females.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man |
05 Jul 2005 10:34:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:17:19 -0700, Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:13:12 -0700, Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
john_bode@my-deja.com wrote:
The concept is correct in the sense that all humans ultimately share
common ancestry. That this ancestry can be traced to the two specific
individuals named Adam and Eve is not so correct (there is evidence
that all modern humans are descended from a single common female
ancestor;
This wording is somewhat misleading. We all have a single female
ancestor in the *all* *female* line. She was *not* the sole female
ancestor of all living humans.
The same mitochondrial DNA is in males, too.
True, but it is not passed on. So we guys inherited ours from a
continuous line of females.
Could this particular DNA sequence just be what makes a female,
female? And it's absence what makes males, males. Could this be the
shopping gene :>) ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man |
05 Jul 2005 02:16:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 10:34:48 -0500, robpar
<robpar@airmaildelete.net> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:17:19 -0700, Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:13:12 -0700, Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
john_bode@my-deja.com wrote:
The concept is correct in the sense that all humans ultimately share
common ancestry. That this ancestry can be traced to the two specific
individuals named Adam and Eve is not so correct (there is evidence
that all modern humans are descended from a single common female
ancestor;
This wording is somewhat misleading. We all have a single female
ancestor in the *all* *female* line. She was *not* the sole female
ancestor of all living humans.
The same mitochondrial DNA is in males, too.
True, but it is not passed on. So we guys inherited ours from a
continuous line of females.
Could this particular DNA sequence just be what makes a female,
female? And it's absence what makes males, males. Could this be the
shopping gene :>) ?
He said, "So we guys inherited ours from a continuous line of
females", meaning that us guys cary the sequence, too.
Besides, men have the same gene as the "shopping gene" in women,
but in us it manifests itself as the "clicker gene". Same result
though, looking at a lot of things, never quite making up our
minds what to buy or which channel to watch.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man |
05 Jul 2005 05:12:46 PM |
|
|
robpar <robpar@airmaildelete.net> wrote:
Could this particular DNA sequence just be what makes a female,
female? And it's absence what makes males, males. Could this be the
shopping gene :>) ?
No. Men and women *both* have the same mitochondrial DNA. It is just
that we men got ours from out mother.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man |
05 Jul 2005 02:13:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:17:19 -0700, Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:13:12 -0700, Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
john_bode@my-deja.com wrote:
The concept is correct in the sense that all humans ultimately share
common ancestry. That this ancestry can be traced to the two specific
individuals named Adam and Eve is not so correct (there is evidence
that all modern humans are descended from a single common female
ancestor;
This wording is somewhat misleading. We all have a single female
ancestor in the *all* *female* line. She was *not* the sole female
ancestor of all living humans.
The same mitochondrial DNA is in males, too.
True, but it is not passed on. So we guys inherited ours from a
continuous line of females.
I didn't say otherwise. But the "Mitochondrial Eve's" mtDNA is
also in the male line; but I think we're dealing with an
unintended ambiguity here.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Bode" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man |
03 Jul 2005 01:36:44 AM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen wrote:
john_bode@my-deja.com wrote:
The concept is correct in the sense that all humans ultimately share
common ancestry. That this ancestry can be traced to the two specific
individuals named Adam and Eve is not so correct (there is evidence
that all modern humans are descended from a single common female
ancestor;
This wording is somewhat misleading. We all have a single female
ancestor in the *all* *female* line. She was *not* the sole female
ancestor of all living humans.
Ah. It seems I have garbled what I read about that. Apologies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"? |
27 Jun 2005 10:51:09 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
josephus wrote:
david ford wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
More pseudo-argument and lame-***** bait questions
from Dave Ford. I wonder how many posts it will
take this time before he reverses his insinuations.
Do you think publication of _Origin_ helped, or hurt, relations:
between humans?
between Germany and France?
between Germany and Jews?
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
Historically Origins was translated into many major languages. The
fact that Hitler or Mousalini (who was very educated ) would have know
it was important. It is a fact that any neural theory can be misused
to justify any number of atrocities ie. the inquisition, the hundred
year war, and the holocaust.
1. The classic 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection' isn't neutral re: human morality and conduct.
\
you have abrogated your moral high ground by lying. We dont believe
anything you say.
2. The theory is wrong.
its a canard. whee!! you are full of it. Evolution is fully
supported and justified, unlike the unfound statements you make.
3. Darwin has a lot of 20th-century blood on his hands.
No he doesn't. If someone in 50 years looks up to David Ford and uses
the disinformation to justify killing innocent people. does that make
you responsible? We dont think so, but you do.
josephus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"? |
27 Jun 2005 10:11:11 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
josephus wrote:
david ford wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
More pseudo-argument and lame-***** bait questions
from Dave Ford. I wonder how many posts it will
take this time before he reverses his insinuations.
Do you think publication of _Origin_ helped, or hurt, relations:
between humans?
between Germany and France?
between Germany and Jews?
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
Historically Origins was translated into many major languages. The
fact that Hitler or Mousalini (who was very educated ) would have know
it was important. It is a fact that any neural theory can be misused
to justify any number of atrocities ie. the inquisition, the hundred
year war, and the holocaust.
At last! Some actual *claims*...
1. The classic 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection' isn't neutral re: human morality and conduct.
Yes it is. Idiots will make normative claims out of any factual description,
but the "nature red in tooth and claw" view predates Darwin by *centuries*.
2. The theory is wrong.
No it's not. Nor has it been shown to be anything other than either incomplete
(when bits have been added to it, such as Mendelian or molecular biology, or
when a novel implication of it and some other theoretical foundations have
been noticed, as in neutral drift).
Even Darwin's theory of speciation by selection remains a contender for at
least *some* of biology. But you, not having actually *studied* the theory,
wouldn't know that.
3. Darwin has a lot of 20th-century blood on his hands.
No he doesn't. You seem to have a problem dealing with basic moral concepts -
let me help: the person who does the bad thing is at fault. Darwin did no bad
thing (unless you buy into the claims that he stole from others, which I
don't). The fact that people who did bad things claimed support from the
Bible, Der Volkisch Philosophie, Darwin, Haeckel, Nietzsche, Wagner and so on,
doesn't make any of those sources responsible for those acts. Likewise, those
who commit atrocities are the evildoers, not those they claim to be depending
upon.
Wagner *was* an antisemite. Haeckel *was* a hypernationalist. The rest are
just people discussing ideas.
So, you can't blame your parents for your own stupidity, OK, David?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"? |
28 Jun 2005 10:45:51 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
david ford wrote:
josephus wrote:
david ford wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
More pseudo-argument and lame-***** bait questions
from Dave Ford. I wonder how many posts it will
take this time before he reverses his insinuations.
Do you think publication of _Origin_ helped, or hurt, relations:
between humans?
between Germany and France?
between Germany and Jews?
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
Historically Origins was translated into many major languages. The
fact that Hitler or Mousalini (who was very educated ) would have know
it was important. It is a fact that any neural theory can be misused
to justify any number of atrocities ie. the inquisition, the hundred
year war, and the holocaust.
At last! Some actual *claims*...
Too bad you killfiled them.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"? |
29 Jun 2005 12:10:23 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
david ford wrote:
josephus wrote:
david ford wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
More pseudo-argument and lame-***** bait questions
from Dave Ford. I wonder how many posts it will
take this time before he reverses his insinuations.
Do you think publication of _Origin_ helped, or hurt, relations:
between humans?
between Germany and France?
between Germany and Jews?
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
Historically Origins was translated into many major languages. The
fact that Hitler or Mousalini (who was very educated ) would have know
it was important. It is a fact that any neural theory can be misused
to justify any number of atrocities ie. the inquisition, the hundred
year war, and the holocaust.
At last! Some actual *claims*...
Too bad you killfiled them.
[snip] nothing was here but>>> David Ford lied.
the only deadly effert was your and it was deadly boring. and your
efforts to harm or blakckball evolution come to nothing. It is still
real and it has lots of evidece and provenamce. You have none.
josephus
josephus
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"? |
23 Jun 2005 01:37:54 AM |
|
|
On 22 Jun 2005 21:12:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
Do individuals of Jewish ancestry collectively qualify as a
[Darwin]"rac[e]"?
Do individuals of Jewish ancestry collectively qualify as a
[Darwin]"rac[e]" subject to [Darwin]"natural selection"?
Are individuals of Jewish ancestry one of several [Darwin]"races"
engaged [Darwin]"in the Struggle for Life"?
No. Darwin, in Decent of Man, was very skeptical about the notion of
"race" as applied to humans. He believed that groupings that had been
variously identified as human "races" did not have specific dividing
lines between them, but gradually blended from one to the other, where
they met geographically. Regarding Jews specifically, the answer is a
very definite "no. "
Your use of the word "race" above, is false. In Darwin's time, as
today, the word "race" was used by scientist to mean a taxonomic
classification of organism ranking below the species level. Here's
the relevant definition from one online dictionary:
Race 1 n.
5 # Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of
organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the
frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal
taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
-- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race
If you want an example of the word "race" being used in this manner in
modern times, I noticed that in the April 30th, 2005 issue of the
magazine "Science News" (vol. 167, no.18), there is on page 286 a
short article, titled "When Opposites Don't Attract," in which in but
five paragraphs "race" is used in this fashion five times.
But you have claimed to have read parts of On the Origins of Species.
So you are aware of how Darwin used the word "race" in that book and
its subtitle, and how humans are hardly mention. The book doesn't not
mention Jews or human "races," as you may imply it does. The book is
not about people. You are aware therefore that your implications
above are false.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
[snip]
1940 Nazi film "All Life is Struggle" embraced Darwinian natural
selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407042043.1c2ccf1f%40posting.google.com
[snip]
This reference may or may not be accurate, as only recently, for
instance, you posted a falsification of a passage from a book by
Deborah Lipstadt. The have misrepresented the text of other works,
including those of Darwin (as you do above regarding the subtitle of
On the Origin of Species).
Putting that aside, why didn't you also post a reference to a far more
important and widely screened Nazi propaganda film, The Eternal Jew,
in which the narrator recites long passages from Martin Luther's call
for the burning of synagogues and the extermination of Jews in his
"The Jews and Their Lies"?
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"? |
23 Jun 2005 08:21:50 AM |
|
|
Mitchell Coffey <m.dot.coffey.at.starpower.dot.net@giganews.com> wrote:
No. Darwin, in Decent of Man, was very skeptical about the notion of
"race" as applied to humans. He believed that groupings that had been
variously identified as human "races" did not have specific dividing
lines between them, but gradually blended from one to the other, where
they met geographically. ...
Interesting. One more thing Darwin was right about.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"? |
23 Jun 2005 08:40:30 AM |
|
|
On 22 Jun 2005 21:12:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in news:<dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
[snip]
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
And a totally useless one, since it confuses Gradualism (the rate of
change) with Natural Selection (the mechanism of change). The fact that
I've pointed this out to Ford several times already doesn't seem to be
important.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"? |
25 Jun 2005 12:06:03 AM |
|
|
Augray wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 21:12:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in news:<dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
[snip]
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
And a totally useless one, since it confuses Gradualism (the rate of
change) with Natural Selection (the mechanism of change). The fact that
I've pointed this out to Ford several times already doesn't seem to be
important.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/5da1a7832d82ff50?
From: Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.atheism,sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Godlessness in trouble: science, 'frauds' trigger decline inatheism
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:42:01 -0500
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Lines: 162
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:21:33 -0500, david ford < >
wrote in news:<dford3-3a19k9F65ij6fU4@individual.net>:
Augray wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 david ford < > wrote in
news:<dford3-39b5s2F5rbeqaU1@individual.net>:
Augray wrote:
On 7 Mar 2005 (david ford) wrote in
news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0503070926.c8cce92@posting.google.com>:
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<itvj21padctjo82c09e128eohv2s0qghhp@4ax.com>...
On 5 Mar 2005 (david ford) wrote in
news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0503051029.4dbbbaaf@posting.google.com>:
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<q2th21t0prd491v8g0ta898mc4h3blm2mi@4ax.com>...
On 04 Mar 2005 david ford in
news:<dford3-38s0qsF5rsvf4U1@individual.net>:
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
An essay that confuses neo-Darwinism with Gradualism, making
it pretty useless.
Do any of the quotations below exhibit similar confusion?
Nope.
Do any of the quotations below embrace [A]"gradualism"?
Define [DF]"embrace".
Do any of the quotations below adopt/ promote/ advocate/ embrace
[A]"gradualism"?
It's considered bad form to include the word you're defining in the
definition.
I'll rephrase. Do any of the quotations below adopt/ promote/ advocate
[A]"gradualism"?
That depends on the context of the quotes.
27. The Julian Huxley URL below contains a large amount of text
preceding the extract seen below.
Do you have:
the 1995 Dawkins book _River Out of Eden_?
the 1996 Dawkins book _Climbing Mount Improbable_?
No.
Do you have ready access to a copy of:
the 1995 Dawkins book _River Out of Eden_?
the 1996 Dawkins book _Climbing Mount Improbable_?
Given "the context of the quotes," do any of the quotations below adopt/
promote/ advocate [A]"gradualism"?
I don't know.
Also, have any of the people mentioned below promoted/ advocated
[A]"gradualism," to your knowledge?
Off hand, I don't know.
28. Who are 5 people that have promoted/advocated [A]"gradualism"? Did
Simpson advocate it? Did Mayr? Did Dobzhansky? Did E.B. Ford?
I don't know.
Did Darwin at any point ever promote/ advocate [A]"gradualism"?
Do you agree with this Dawkins?: [Dawkins]"But it ['evolution'] must be
gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of
complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes."
What is the context of the quote?
I am hoping you will obtain a copy of the book in question.
Do you think that [A]"gradualism" has been falsified by the known
fossil record?
In a lot of cases, yes.
What are some of the more noteworthy cases where [A]"gradualism" has
been verified by the fossil record, with URLs to pictures illustrating
those cases of [A]"gradualism" you mention?
Did I claim that gradualism had been verified by the fossil record?
Not that I recall.
Then why did you ask the question?
29. Because I was curious.
Fair enough, but you're not known for your curiosity.
What are some of the more noteworthy cases where [A]"gradualism" has
been verified by the fossil record, with URLs to pictures illustrating
those cases of [A]"gradualism" you mention?
One possible answer you might respond with is: "I'm unaware of any such
cases."
I'll suggest that the divergence of _Globigerinoides trilobus_ and
_Orbulina universa_ is an example of gradualism. See
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina.html for pictures.
30. Thank you. I encourage everyone following this discussion to look
at the link you supplied.
Wills, Christopher. 1989. _The Wisdom of the Genes: New
Pathways in Evolution_ (USA: BasicBooks), 351pp. According to
the cover, Wills is "Professor of Biology and a member of the
Center for Molecular Genetics at the University of California,
San Diego, where he conducts research on the origin and evolution
of genetic variation in humans and other organisms." On 84-5:
The fossil record indicates that it is only rarely that one
species evolves smoothly and continuously into another.
.... The process of speciation usually occurs so quickly
that if we are looking at the fossil record it seems as if
the new species arises instantaneously. This is the common
pattern that is seen even when the fossil record can be
tracked in the greatest detail.
On 93:
....it turns out that there are a few examples from the
fossil record in which an entire species appears to pass by
imperceptible stages into another.
On 94, 96, a paragraph:
It is interesting that all the cases of gradual evolution
that we know about from the fossil record seem to involve
smooth changes without the appearance of novel structures
and functions. It may be, as a number of researchers have
suggested, that really dramatic changes can occur only
during the violent alterations in the gene pool that happen
most readily in small, ephemeral populations.
The example I linked to is a refutation of the above claim.
I leave it to lurkers to look at your URL and my Wills and decide for
themselves.
If you want
more detail, I suggest you look up the original paper.
Someone else gave me a similar URL, and I replied with the above Wills.
Ref:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=8bhf4m%24eta%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
So?
So history has been repeated.
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977) testimony by G&E:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a
conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all these
years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
So?
Indeed.
So people find examples of punctuated equilibria in the fossil record.
Is that a problem?
[snip the rest]
Not for me.
Does Huxley promote/ advocate [A]"gradualism" below?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Huxley, Julian. 1953. (Great Britain: Penguin Books, reprinted
1968), 167pp. J. Huxley was one of the architects of the
Synthetic Euphoria, and the author of _Evolution: The Modern
Synthesis_ (1943). From the chapter "How Natural Selection
Works," paragraphs on 43-49:
I am afraid this all sounds rather dry and abstract. But, actually,
the idea of [Darwinian/ neo-Darwinian] natural selection, once it
has been properly grasped with all its implications, is extremely
illuminating, enabling one to see the phenomena of life in a new
and exciting way. Most basically, natural selection converts
accident into apparent design, randomness into organized
pattern. Mutation merely provides the raw material of
evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions.
Genes are giant molecules, and their mutations are the result of
slight alterations in their structure. Some of these alterations are
truly chance rearrangements, as uncaused or at least as
unpredictable as the jumping of an electron from one orbit to
another inside an atom; others are the result of the impact of
some external agency, like X-rays, or ultra-violet radiations, or
mustard gas. But in all cases they are random in relation to
evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the
organism, or to the conditions in which it is placed. They occur
without reference to their possible consequences or biological
uses. It is true that we sometimes find 'pre-adaptation' to some
other environment; but that is a very different matter. Thus a
mutant strain of water-flea was found to be adapted to a
temperature 7^0 C above the optimum for the parent type. A
mutation in tobacco prevented the plants from flowering in the
latitude of the State of Washington, where it originated, but was
pre-adapted to more tropical regions.
To put the matter in a nutshell: the capacity of living substance
for reproduction is the expansive driving force of evolution;
mutation provides its raw material; but natural selection
determines its direction.
One would expect that any interference with such a complicated
piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would
result in damage. And in fact this is so: the great majority of
mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism. A
few have favourable effects, or effects that can become
favourable in combination with other genes. Selection
automatically incorporates this tiny minority of favourable
variations into the hereditary constitution, by shifting them from
the mass of unusable dross. Of course, selection also actively
weeds out the unfavourable variations-- the most harmful ones
immediately, the less harmful after a greater or lesser number of
generations. Mutations repeat themselves with a certain
frequency. So, if this weeding-out process did not occur, a
harmful mutant, like haemophilia (or bleeding) in man, would
gradually grow more and more abundant. Thus selection is
necessary merely to maintain the biological efficiency of animal
and plant species. In the absence of this maintenance selection,
as we may call it, harmful mutations are not weeded out; they
accumulate, and genetic degeneration sets in. This is what has
happened in various species of cave fish, for example: in caves
there was no selection for efficiency of vision, and their eyes
have degenerated, sometimes to total disappearance. It should
be noted that cave animals are derived mainly from types which
shun light and often have poorly developed eyes. So here
constitutional pre-adaptation may lead on to genetic
degeneration. Selection thus acts in three main ways. It
determines the direction of new positive evolutionary change or
improvement; it maintains the level of existing improvement;
and its absence leads to 'disimprovement' or degeneration.
We can sometimes actually see selection in action. Let me give
a few examples. Everyone knows that some diseases can be
successfully treated with drugs that kill the bacteria causing
them. But sometimes treatment of this sort, instead of killing
the bacteria, produces a resistant strain. The American biologist
Demerec grew the bacterium called _Escherischia coli_ in
cultures containing the bactericidal drug streptomycin. It soon
became totally resistant to any reasonable dose. This, he found,
was not due to all the bacteria becoming gradually more and
more resistant, but to the presence in every large culture (which
may run to tens or hundreds of thousands of millions of
individuals) of a few mutants which have already mutated, quite
irrelevantly and accidentally, in such a way as to be able to
resist the action of streptomycin. The important point is that the
mutants were there already: the mutations which gave rise to
them took place long before the streptomycin treatment was
started. But once it was started, they alone could survive and
multiply: all the rest, other mutants as well as normals, died off.
On the other hand, _Staphylococcus aureus_ required four or
five mutational steps to develop full resistance to penicillin.
Here presumably new mutations were involved in the later
steps, in addition to the selection of preexistent mutants. But
the entire process depended on selection.
The same appears to hold for the scale insects infesting citrus
crops in California. Over the past half-century they have
become progressively more resistant to the deadly poison,
hydrocyanic acid. Fumigation dosage had to be stepped up;
firms no longer guaranteed success; spraying had to be
introduced; and the increased spray dosage began to damage the
trees. Here too selection was a matter of life and death, and the
resultant change was much faster than anything to be expected
in nature.
Next, an experimental demonstration of selection. The insects
called water-boatmen vary in colour and shade. When samples
of these were put in vessels with different shades of background,
each with an insect-eating fish in it, the ones which were
conspicuous by differing from the background were eaten in
greater numbers. The greater the conspicuousness, and the
smaller the total number of water-boatmen, the greater was the
selective disadvantage-- in some cases up to five of the more
conspicuous were eaten for every one of the inconspicuous.
Next, a diagrammatically simple case. In poultry, there is a
mutation called frizzled. This acts so as to set the feathers up on
end and allow the body-heat to escape, so that frizzled fowls
cannot be kept alive in Britain through the year, except in
heated rooms. But in the tropics they can exist perfectly well,
and in some places strains with frizzled feathers do better than
breeds with normal ones. The frizzled mutant is thus at a high
selective disadvantage in cold climates, at a slight selective
advantage in hot ones.
Then there is the remarkable case of what is called industrial
melanism-- the fact that during the past hundred years many
different species of moths have become virtually black in
industrial towns, while remaining light and protectively
coloured in the countryside. In these species, the melanics, or
dark forms, are much hardier than the normals, but these-- the
light ones-- are better concealed from their enemies in the
unblackened country-side. So they have a selective advantage
there, while the melanics are better able to resist the smoke and
contamination of the industrial areas. Here, again, the new
conditions had nothing whatever to do with the origin of the
mutation which results in melanism. There were always a few
rare melanics-- much valued, incidentally, by collectors-- and
the new conditions merely provided them with their
opportunity.
Finally, we have the curious fact that the harmful effects of
mutant genes may automatically be selected back towards
normality. For instance, the so-called eyeless mutant of the
famous fruit-fly, _Drosophila_, at its first appearance had no or
small eyes, and was less healthy and in general less capable of
survival than normal wild-type flies. But after a pure eyeless
strain had been bred for eight or ten generations, both its health
and vigour and its eyes were almost normal. Any odd mutant
genes already present in small numbers in the strain, which
reduced the harmful effects of the eyeless mutation,
automatically multiplied at the expense of those which did not.
Natural selection, in fact, provided a genetic servo-mechanism
to regulate the mutant back towards normality in its effects.
'That is all very well,' you may say. 'It seems to be true that
natural selection can turn moths black in industrial areas, can
keep protective coloration up to the mark, can produce resistant
strains of bacteria and insect pests. But what about really
elaborate improvements? Can it transform a reptile's leg into a
bird's wing, or turn a monkey into a man? How can a blind and
automatic sifting process like selection, operating on a blind and
undirected process like mutation, produce organs like the eye or
the brain, with their almost incredible complexity and delicacy
of adjustment? How can chance produce elaborate design? In a
word, are you not asking us to believe too much?' The answer
is no: all this is not too much to believe, once one has grasped
the way the process operates. Professor R. A. Fisher once
summed the matter up in a pithy phrase-- 'Natural selection is a
mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of
improbability'. Of course, this is in a sense a paradox, and the
improbability is only an apparent one: but it is a useful
shorthand phrase to denote the real improbability of the results
having been produced in any other way than by means of
natural selection. The clue to the paradox is time. The longer
selection operates, the more improbable (in this sense) are its
results; and in point of fact it has been operating for a very long
time indeed. All living things are equally old-- they can all
trace their ancestry back some 2,000 million years. With that
length of time available, little adjustments can easily be made to
add up to miraculous adaptations; and the slight shifts of
gene-frequency between one generation and the next can be
multiplied to produce radical improvements and totally new
kinds of creatures.
===============================================================
For Further Reading
"natural selection converts accident into apparent design"
Biology began to exist and has the appearance of having been
designed by intelligence.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404261328.38d307d9%40posting.google.com
"We can sometimes actually see selection in action. Let me
give a few examples." I bet examples such as these are what
Rostand spoke of when referring to [Rostand]"the
experimental... demonstrations which the eminent supporters of
modern neo-Darwinism hurl at us."
1961 Rostand
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310280012200.31488-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
"Fisher once summed the matter up in a pithy phrase"
1985 Robert G.B. Reid on "received aphorisms"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980613224255.8353A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Speaking of Fisher,
1992 Orr & Coyne on Fisher
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970329001049.19794A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1992 _American Naturalist_ paper by Orr & Coyne
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980614220859.6338A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
"One would expect that any interference with such a
complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic
constitution would result in damage. And in fact this is so: the
great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on
the organism. A few have favourable effects, or effects that can
become favourable in combination with other genes."
Dawkins in:
Simpson and Dobzhansky on the need for a mechanism,
Dawkins on mutation, Gordon Rattray Taylor and David Raup
on explosive radiations, Arthur Koestler on testing Darwinian
and Lamarckian theory by experiment
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8beptq%24hgk%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
NIEH
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980604010337.18472C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Koestler, Waddington, Dobzhansky, and a remark for Gould
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980606011626.8316A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
"control - f"/ find for "arisen" in
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
"With that length of time available, little adjustments can easily
be made to add up to miraculous adaptations;"
A most curious choice of words.
Note also the invocation of magical megatime, in which given
enough time anything can happen, glaring improbability be
damned. Wald once famously invoked magical megatime:
summary of portion of Wald article on spontaneous generation
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
"the slight shifts of gene-frequency between one generation and
the next can be multiplied to produce radical improvements and
totally new kinds of creatures." To make this fantasy a reality,
simply repeat it 837 times while burning two (or was it seven?)
scented candles. It helps if all fellow true believers repeat it as
well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"? |
26 Jun 2005 06:01:06 PM |
|
|
On 24 Jun 2005 22:06:03 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in news:<dford3-1119675963.933506.184490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Augray wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 21:12:43 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in news:<dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
[snip]
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
And a totally useless one, since it confuses Gradualism (the rate of
change) with Natural Selection (the mechanism of change). The fact that
I've pointed this out to Ford several times already doesn't seem to be
important.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/5da1a7832d82ff50?
It's taken you three months to respond?
From: Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.atheism,sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Godlessness in trouble: science, 'frauds' trigger decline inatheism
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:42:01 -0500
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Lines: 162
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:21:33 -0500, david ford < >
wrote in news:<dford3-3a19k9F65ij6fU4@individual.net>:
Augray wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 david ford < > wrote in
news:<dford3-39b5s2F5rbeqaU1@individual.net>:
Augray wrote:
On 7 Mar 2005 (david ford) wrote in
news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0503070926.c8cce92@posting.google.com>:
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<itvj21padctjo82c09e128eohv2s0qghhp@4ax.com>...
On 5 Mar 2005 (david ford) wrote in
news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0503051029.4dbbbaaf@posting.google.com>:
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<q2th21t0prd491v8g0ta898mc4h3blm2mi@4ax.com>...
On 04 Mar 2005 david ford in
news:<dford3-38s0qsF5rsvf4U1@individual.net>:
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
An essay that confuses neo-Darwinism with Gradualism, making
it pretty useless.
Do any of the quotations below exhibit similar confusion?
Nope.
Do any of the quotations below embrace [A]"gradualism"?
Define [DF]"embrace".
Do any of the quotations below adopt/ promote/ advocate/ embrace
[A]"gradualism"?
It's considered bad form to include the word you're defining in the
definition.
I'll rephrase. Do any of the quotations below adopt/ promote/ advocate
[A]"gradualism"?
That depends on the context of the quotes.
27. The Julian Huxley URL below contains a large amount of text
preceding the extract seen below.
Do you have:
the 1995 Dawkins book _River Out of Eden_?
the 1996 Dawkins book _Climbing Mount Improbable_?
No.
Do you have ready access to a copy of:
the 1995 Dawkins book _River Out of Eden_?
the 1996 Dawkins book _Climbing Mount Improbable_?
Yes.
Given "the context of the quotes," do any of the quotations below adopt/
promote/ advocate [A]"gradualism"?
I don't know.
Also, have any of the people mentioned below promoted/ advocated
[A]"gradualism," to your knowledge?
Off hand, I don't know.
28. Who are 5 people that have promoted/advocated [A]"gradualism"? Did
Simpson advocate it? Did Mayr? Did Dobzhansky? Did E.B. Ford?
I don't know.
Did Darwin at any point ever promote/ advocate [A]"gradualism"?
Yes.
Do you agree with this Dawkins?: [Dawkins]"But it ['evolution'] must be
gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of
complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes."
What is the context of the quote?
I am hoping you will obtain a copy of the book in question.
What book would that be? Are you saying that you don't know the context
of the quote?
Do you think that [A]"gradualism" has been falsified by the known
fossil record?
In a lot of cases, yes.
What are some of the more noteworthy cases where [A]"gradualism" has
been verified by the fossil record, with URLs to pictures illustrating
those cases of [A]"gradualism" you mention?
Did I claim that gradualism had been verified by the fossil record?
Not that I recall.
Then why did you ask the question?
29. Because I was curious.
Fair enough, but you're not known for your curiosity.
What are some of the more noteworthy cases where [A]"gradualism" has
been verified by the fossil record, with URLs to pictures illustrating
those cases of [A]"gradualism" you mention?
One possible answer you might respond with is: "I'm unaware of any such
cases."
I'll suggest that the divergence of _Globigerinoides trilobus_ and
_Orbulina universa_ is an example of gradualism. See
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina.html for pictures.
30. Thank you. I encourage everyone following this discussion to look
at the link you supplied.
Wills, Christopher. 1989. _The Wisdom of the Genes: New
Pathways in Evolution_ (USA: BasicBooks), 351pp. According to
the cover, Wills is "Professor of Biology and a member of the
Center for Molecular Genetics at the University of California,
San Diego, where he conducts research on the origin and evolution
of genetic variation in humans and other organisms." On 84-5:
The fossil record indicates that it is only rarely | | | |
