Re: Search `Fabrizio J Bonsignore` for The Speciation Process
From: Michael Ragland (ragland37_at_webtv.net)
Date: 10/05/04
- Next message: Michael Ragland: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
- Previous message: Robert Karl Stonjek: "Paper: Endemic Infection of the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus in a Frog Community Post-Decline"
- In reply to: Michael Ragland: "Re: Search `Fabrizio J Bonsignore` for The Speciation Process"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 23:02:08 +0000 (UTC)
(Moderator) Josh Hayes
My most distinguished fellow, I would like you to explictly state in
what manner this notes can be considered: irrational, when there is an
argument to each idea even if it is not so easily grasped and Reason can
and should look for possibilities in Reality; grotesque, when it is
written with maximum objectivity; or incoherent, though it certainly
makes use of the characteristics of this new medium to develop an
argument incrementally and with the help of others.
Michael Ragland:
You're absolutely right, I didn't qualify my arguments against
Fabrizio's short article and for that I was wrong. Just because
something seems like an erroneous argumentation to me doesn't
necessarily mean others will view it the same way. I don't help my case
in such circumstances but weaken it. I didn't particularly notice,
however, Fabrizio argument was assisted with the help of others. I'm
sure he has read other authors but there were no references on the
particular page I found that he wrote.
(Moderator) Josh Hayes:
I would like you to explicitly enlighten possible readers as to the
wrongness of these arguments and not only throw adjectives in the way of
criticism, for good criticism uses reasoning, not colorful words.
Michael Ragland:
I agree.
(Moderator) Josh Hayes:
As for the qualification of `young Hitler` I am most offended, for race
is NOT a main element of the article and it has nothing to do with
proposing genocides or brutality, but with understanding tensions in
society and what the future holds for us in the short and long term. It
is just a snap in a very long argument and your comments make me think
that emotion prevented you from reading the whole thread and emit a
rational comment.
Michael Ragland:
Yes, the young Hitler comment was a colorful flourish. Although "race"
was not the main element or even a direct element at all Mr.
Bonsignore's statements of Down Syndrome people reproducing and creating
a "new species", his idea of "extrinsic factors" of isolated
reproduction among the human species such as geographic, socio-political
and racial procreative boundaries possibly leading to "intrinsic
factors" of isolated reproduction within a species which results in
speciation (the inability of some human species to reproduce with a
"different" human species. There is his statement, "Unfortunately, this
speciation process is such that it introduces tensions in the human
family. By its mere definition, the speciation process can lead to wars
and other social unrest among Nations. That we be able to manage this
divergent differences peacefully is one of the most challenging aspects
of the future of Man." This somewhat contradicts his opening line,
however, "That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean
that the basic definition of the human species is not changing, only
that this change is so slow that for practical purposes is irrelevant.
And yet the basic requirements for the speciation process in Man are
already given." Darwinian evolution is a well known long evolutionary
process and "speciation" takes even long, even if one accounts for
punctuated equilibrium as there are long periods of stasis. It seems to
me Mr. Bonsignore is describing speciation events as they occured in our
evolutionary past when constant struggle, war, genocide and divergent
differences resulted in our speciation events. For numerous reasons I
don't think that model of speciation is no longer applicable in our
present evolutionary situation.
Mr. Bonsignore doesn't seem to have much faith in Darwinian evolution as
he states it has "stopped" in relation to "Reason". In states, "Even if
Reason is the defining characteristic in the human species doesn`t mean
that it must remain so for the unforseeable future. Whole populations
can be interbreeding to select, from a social (mores, prejudices) point
of view, characteristics that emphatize not an increase in intelligence
but a decrease, an involution. Nowhere says or is written that
intelligence as we know it must remain in the definition of the
species." First of all, I would not state "reason" is "the" defining
characteristic of the species. I would say it is "one" of the defining
characteristics precariously perched alongside irrationality and
aggressive instincts. I would argue if "reason" no longer becomes one of
the defining characteristics of our species this will not result in our
future speciation events but in our extinction. In any event, I've
argued all along in s.b.e. that our species can't wait up for Darwinian
evolution to produce our next speciation or make us more adaptive to our
current environment and that we must use genetic engineering in the
future.
(Moderator Josh Hayes)
I would like you to deny argumentatively that national barriers and
culture DO act as a procreation barrier.
Michael Ragland:
I can't and you know that. National barriers and culture Do act as a
procreation barrier but that doesn't mean that a fertile healthy
Norwegian or Swedish woman couldn't travel to Africa or Mexico and meet
a "stud" and have a viable pregnancy and birth. Or that a healthy and
fertile Hasidic Jewess couldn't theoretically travel to Austria and meet
an "Austrian stud" and have a viable pregnancy and birth. Now if these
women tried to screw a fertile male chimpanzee I don't think they would
have any success.
(Moderator) Josh Hayes:
And I must point to you that when you wrote `You`re (sic) few minutes of
time are hopefully exhausted`, you were actually hoping that I would die
soon, a lapsus, though I understand what you really meant.
Michael Ragland:
No, I wasn't referring to you. You've been a great and fair moderator on
this newsgroup. I was referring to Fabrizio. Remember, I was the one who
looked up his article at his request. I asked him why he just didn't
post it to s.b.e. I have no problem continuing a thread with him despite
my hot words.
Fabrizio Bonsignore:
I hope the moderator won`t extinguish this thread as it may not be
`scientific` but certainly expresses very real possibilities and
understandings, which incidentally in my mind can be readily
mathematized, though my present circumstances (and the medium) don`t
help at all that undertaking. This can be modeled mathematically and
programmatically in several ways. Other readers may point to references
to models that can be adapted to fit this ideas.
Michael Ragland:
By all means.
ragland37@webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote in message
news:<cjntlh$1md4$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
I'm curious Mr. Bonsignore why you just didn't post your little article
instead of requesting others look it up on the internet. Were you
possibly concerned it wouldn't get posted in this moderated group? I
don't know if our moderator would have allowed it but it is certainly
junk, shorn of any scientific pretense or actual value. Your "article"
"Future of Man: the Speciation Process" is irrational, grotesque and
tinged with rambling incoherency. It is befitting a bizarre grotesque
brutalized fantasy novel. Let's hope there aren't any young "Hitlers"
out there enthralled by your "Future of Man: the Speciation Process".
You're few minutes of time are hopefully exhausted.
[moderator's note: I have to agree with Michael; at the time I could not
fire up a browser so I took a chance, and of course I now regret having
done so. My apologies to the readers. - JAH]
Michael Ragland
Future of Man: the Speciation Process
by fbonsignore@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) Sep 14,
2004 at 09:34 PM
That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that this
change is so slow that for practical purposes is irrelevant. And yet the
basic requirements for the speciation process in Man are already given.
There are, not only geographical barriers to cross breeding but also
sociopolitical ones. In fact, each national state is in itself a melting
pot where one of the possible futures of Man is being born.
There are strong barriers to cross race procreation. How long before
those barriers turn from social to biological ones? Strictly speaking,
the Down syndrome children are *already* a different species; a
different number of chromosomes which, if allowed to interbreed will
eventually lead to a totally different species, unable to procreate with
`normal` humans.
Exactly what space of possibilities in the Reality of biological beings
will they be exploring, quite literally only they know. To many people
they are indeed special, and that speciality might in te future reveal
in interesting ways if a population of them is allowed to form and
develop for itself.
Michael Ragland:
Here's some information about Down Syndrome:
"If a sperm or egg with an abnormal number of chromosomes merges with a
normal mate, the resulting fertilized egg will have an abnormal number
of chromosomes. In Down syndrome, 95% of all cases are caused by this
event: one cell has two 21st chromosomes instead of one, so the
resulting fertilized egg has three 21st chromosomes. Hence the
scientific name, trisomy 21. Recent research has shown that in these
cases, approximately 90% of the abnormal cells are the eggs. The cause
of the nondisjunction error isn't known, but there is definitely
connection with maternal age. Research is currently aimed at trying to
determine the cause and timing of the nondisjunction event.
Here's the karyotype of a
male with trisomy 21:
Three to four percent of all cases of trisomy 21 are due to Robertsonian
Translocation. In this case, two breaks occur in separate chromosomes,
usually the 14th and 21st chromosomes. There is rearrangement of the
genetic material so that some of the 14th chromosome is replaced by
extra 21st chromosome. So while the number of chromosomes remain normal,
there is a triplication of the 21st chromosome material. Some of these
children may only have triplication of part of the 21st chromosome
instead of the whole chromosome, which is called a partial trisomy 21.
Translocations resulting in trisomy 21 may be inherited, so it's
important to check the chromosomes of the parents in these cases to see
if either may be a "carrier."
The remainder of cases of trisomy 21 are due to mosaicism. These people
have a mixture of cell lines, some of which have a normal set of
chromosomes and others which have trisomy 21. In cellular mosaicism, the
mixture is seen in different cells of the same type. In tissue
mosaicism, one set of cells, such as all blood cells, may have normal
chromosomes, and another type, such as all skin cells, may have trisomy
21."
I'm not a medical doctor but my "guess" is if two individuals of the
opposite sex with Down Syndrome (trisomy 21 or partial trisomy 21) tried
to reproduce the resulting pregnancy would not be viable. If it was
viable it may not live long or be even more mentally retarded than its
parents. Therefore, the idea of those with Down Syndrome creating their
own "species" is absurd.
Another faulty idea is that those with Down Syndrome constitute a
"different species". There are many definitions of species but generally
it is a group of organisms that have a unique set of characteristics
(like body shape and behavior) that distinguishes them from other
organisms. If they reproduce, individuals within the same species can
produce fertile offspring. A person with Down Syndrome is a chromosomal
abnormality but they belong to the genus Homo and species Sapien. They
are not a frog or a dog. You'll see them at the shopping malls,
McDonald's, etc. You may notice they look abnormal and their behavior is
abnormal but they are a human being. If one possibly followed your
argument anybody with a genetic abnormality would possibly constitute a
different species. I have bipolar disorder and if its caused in part by
my genes does that mean I'm a different species? Or would you restrict
it to those so chromosomally/genetically/congenitally defective they
can't reproduce? In one technical sense those with conditions making it
unable for them to reproduce are not a species as one definition of
species is a classification of related organisms that can freely
interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and usually resemble each other
most closely. But they are still Homo Sapiens. But what if a young man
has a vasectomy and can never make a woman pregnant. Is he a species?
Fabrizio:
Even is Reason is the defining characteristic in the human species
doesn`t mean that it must remain so for the unforseeable future. Whole
populations can be interbreeding to select, from a social (mores,
prejudices) point of view, characteristics that emphatize not an
increase in intelligence but a decrease, an involution. Nowhere says or
is written that intelligence as we know it must remain in the definition
of the species. Though language very probably will remain a basic
characteristic of future humanities (too useful to ignore), different
roles for it may develop accordingly to other biological characteristics
and different humanities may grant it a bigger or lesser importance in
their everyday behaviour (there are societies that read an write little,
while others dedicate lots of resource to verbal and/or written
communication). DNA is a language that changes in subtle and almost
continuous way, give the enormous quatities of information that go in
the definition of an individual.
Michael Ragland:
I've addressed most of this above to Dr. Hayes. DNA is not a language
that changes in "continous" ways and the quantity of information that
goes into an individual is not enormous. Yes, there is much genetic
variation but underlying that variation is a "non-variant"
basis. DNA contains only so many bits of information. It is not as
"complex" as some thought it would be. There are still "mountains" of
information we don't know about our DNA but that does not mean it
changes in continous ways.
Fabrizio:
Unfortunately, this speciation process is such that it introduces
tensions in the human family. By its mere definition, the speciation
process can lead to wars and other social unrest among Nations. That we
be able to manage this divergent differences peacefully is one of the
most challenging aspects of the future of Man...
Michael Ragland:
I addressed this above to Dr. Hayes as well.
Below is a question on the issue of those who are developmentally
disabled having sex. As you can see many such individuals live in
structured group homes and they have a guardian/legal representative and
are prevented from having sex because they can't give informed consent.
This is a sticky area since there is the possibility of a stranger,
therapist, etc. sexually abusing them. Hence them not being able to give
informed consent seeks to protect them. On the other hand some who are
developmentally disabled may want to have sex with another person who is
developmentally disabled. It seems this situation should be handled on a
case by case basis and those developmentally disabled who are sexually
active or express a desire to be sexually active should be counseled to
use some form of birth control such as birth control pill or surgical
contraception. But it is a sensitive issue because of their presumed
inability to give informed consent and being at the mercy of higher
powers.
Question:
I am a residential counselor at a group home for developmentally
disabled adults. We have never had a sexuality policy or sex ed program.
Recently, a client with independent privelages perpetrated an incident
with another client. Now I have been given the task of researching and
proposing a "policy on sexuality" for the home. I have read articles
about various methods of sex education, but have found nothing regarding
policies for institutions/group homes/etcetera. Do you have any
suggestions? Most of the clients that live at this group home have
little to no knowledge of sexual intercourse. There appears to be some
interest in kissing/petting/relationships, but each client has a legal
guardian/conservator and marriage or sex is not an option for anyone at
this time as everyone has been declared uncapable of giving informed
consent. We also have one client who has come out as gay (he is the one
who perpetrated the incident). Any help you can give me or any direction
you could point me in would be very helpful. Thank you Answer:
by Susan Ludwig: (06/13/2004)
Thank you for writing about this very important subject. Good Policy is
fundamental to providing good sexuality education and for insuring that
the rights and the needs of each individual are respected. A good policy
takes into account the rights and needs of the individual. It needs to
reflect the legislation of the area in which the individual lives. It
needs to be written in a way that lets everyone know what his or her
responsibility is to ensure that the individual is able to access his or
her rights. There is a good example of policy available from The
Association for Community Living, Residentail Services at One Carando
Drive, Springfield, MA, 01104-3211 called Human Sexuality Handbook;
Guiding People Toward Positive Expressions of Sexuality. If you are
interested, I can help you get connected with an agency in Pennsylvania
who have developed a tool for determning consent. I am concerned about
you comment that your clients would enjoy being in relationships but
that their guardians have vetoed this. You need to check with your local
legislation to learn if another person is able to deny a person the
right to develop an intimate relationship if that person demonstrates
that he or she is capable of giving consent. Good luck with your work
and keep in touch! I would like to hear about your progress!
Reviewed by Sexual Health Editorial Team
"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well without it."
Stephen Hawking
- Next message: Michael Ragland: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
- Previous message: Robert Karl Stonjek: "Paper: Endemic Infection of the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus in a Frog Community Post-Decline"
- In reply to: Michael Ragland: "Re: Search `Fabrizio J Bonsignore` for The Speciation Process"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
