HIV - a 'scientific' variant of Hitler's Star of David
zOz
the past few months to defend the 'scientific' HIV/AIDS belief
system.
I hope that at least some of them do no longer exclude the
possibility that they have been misled in a very intelligent
and effective way.
HIV positivity has become by an unfortunate concatenation of
events a 'scientific' variant of the Star of David as used by
the National Socialist ideology. I personally would prefer to
be sent to a gas chamber than to be slowly poisoned to death
by AZT or similar drugs. (Liver or kidney failures are nowadays
tyical outcomes of "highly active antiretroviral therapy".)
There was an end to Hitler's Star of David, so there will be an
end to the suffering from being classified as 'HIV positive'.
Think about the many women who are terrorised with a positive
HIV test result during pregnancy, leading even to a treatment
of the unborn developing child with DNA chain terminators !!!
Think about the many persons who have committed suicide or
simply given up after a positive AIDS test.
Think about the many Africans who die after a positive HIV test,
not because of a long-established harmless retrovirus, but
because of the AIDS terror.
| AIDS 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2391-400
|
| Mortality associated with HIV infection in rural Rakai District,
| Uganda.
|
| OBJECTIVE: To assess mortality impact of HIV in rural Uganda.
| METHODS: An open cohort of 19983 adults aged 15-59 years, in
| Rakai district was followed at 10 month intervals for four
| surveys. Sociodemographic characteristics and symptomatology/
| disease conditions were assessed by interview. Deaths among
| residents and out-migrants were identified household census.
| Mortality rates were computed per 1000 person years (py) and
| the rate ratio (RR) of death in HIV-positive/HIV-negative
| subjects, and the population attributable fraction (PAF)
| of death were estimated according to sociodemographic
| characteristics. Mortality associated with potential AIDS
| defining symptoms and signs was assessed.
|
| RESULTS: HIV prevalence was 16.1%. Mortality was 132.6 per
| 1000 person-years in HIV-infected versus 6.7 per 1000 py in
| in uninfected subjects, and 73.5% of adult deaths were
| attributable to HIV infection. Mortality increased with age,
| but the highest attributable risk of HIV associated deaths
| were observed in persons aged 20-39 years (PAF > 80%) and
| in women. HIV associated mortality was highest in the better
| educated (PAF > or = 75%) and among government employees
| (PAF > or = 82%). Of the HIV-positive subjects 40.5% reported
| no illness < 10 months preceding death, symptoms were poor
| predictors of death (sensitivity 1.6-38.8%), and only 9.1%
| met the World Health Organization clinical definition of AIDS.
| Infant mortality rates in babies of HIV-infected and
| uninfected mothers were 209.4 and 97.7 per 1000, respectively.
|
| CONCLUSION: HIV is taking substantial toll in this population,
| particularly among the younger better educated adults, and
| infants. Symptomatology or the World Health Organization
| definition of AIDS are poor predictors of death.
At first HIV was introduced to explain rare diseases of persons
with clearly defined health risks (unhealthy life-style, abuse
of inhalant or intravenous drugs, abuse of medical drugs such as
antibiotics).
Later the virus was found to be widespread in Africa. Blood
samples show that HIV had already been widespread at least in
the 1970's.
The problem was 'resolved' by declaring the typical poverty
related diseases (e.g. tuberculosis, diarrhea, wasting) as
AIDS.
The reproach that this redefinition of typical POVERTY diseases
is an insidious fraud is now being fought by studies like the
above one.
"HIV associated mortality was highest in the better educated
and among government employees."
However neither the original US AIDS nor "African" AIDS can be
responsible for the high mortality in these groups.
"Of the HIV-positive subjects 40.5% reported no illness < 10
months preceding death, symptoms were poor predictors of death,
and only 9.1% met the World Health Organization clinical
definition of AIDS."
Every reasonably intelligent and unprejudiced person should
draw the correct conclusion from this: HIV in Africa is a
modern variant of the shamanistic finger of death, or simply
scientific voodoo.
We all make errors, but we should try to correct them as soon
as possible.
Wolfgang Gottfried G. z...@z.lol.li
The current state of modern science is in several respects
similar to its state at the beginning of the 17th century:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=629574710
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Gary Stein
news:91g97t$64t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> We all make errors, but we should try to correct them as soon
> as possible.
Take your own advice Wolfgang and make an attempt to learn something,
anything, even the smallest fact about HIV/AIDS would be a start until then
keep your ridiculous, ignorant, mumbo jumbo to news groups such as alt.ufos
or alt.nutcases at least there someone might actually think you have a clue.
Hope that Helps
--
Gary Stein
ges...@starpower.net
http://www.mischealthaids.org
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
(Gene Spafford)
Bloody Viking
zOz (wissensch...@my-deja.com) wrote:
: the National Socialist ideology. I personally would prefer to
: be sent to a gas chamber than to be slowly poisoned to death
: by AZT or similar drugs. (Liver or kidney failures are nowadays
: tyical outcomes of "highly active antiretroviral therapy".)
First step. HIV and SIVcpz are naturally-occuring and not an artificial
definition like Hitler's (ab)use of the Star of David logo. Where HIV came
from was SIVcpz found in chimps who were butchered and the blood getting into
cuts on the butcher, like the ol' sharing needles trick. Once a strain of
SIVcpz was able to infect humans, it was the first release of HIV.
That's something for creationists to ponder, the version of SIVcpz that is
also HIV. Or, I suppose, SIVhom.
Next step. Unlike a star of David logo, HIV kills on its own. No need for the
Zyklon B, idiot. Instead, the drugs are attempts at SAVING lives, crappy as
they in fact are. If I had HIV/SIV*, I'd take my chances on the drugs to
extract more life out of it all. Either way, it's a case of Pick Your Poison.
You can't compare HIV to the Star of David logo.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
Scott Craver
>
>HIV positivity has become by an unfortunate concatenation of
>events a 'scientific' variant of the Star of David as used by
>the National Socialist ideology.
Note that this post was bound to happen eventually. When a fringe
hypothesis fails in the light of evidence (especially those supported
by one Y*ri K*chinsk*,) there begins a barrage of attempts to get
it accepted by another avenue that circumvents the scientific method.
Associating the fringe theory with good things and mainstream science
with bad things is one such attempt to "win" by technicality, or in
the public eye.
Thus we have the tenuous association between HIV diagnosis and
Nazis marking Jews (and Rom, and *homosexuals*---odd how zOz didn't
think of using the more obvious analogy) in hopes that people will
figure, "screw the evidence, people who believe that HIV causes
AIDS are clearly Nazis and Hitler, because of these USENET posts
comparing them arbitrarily to Nazis and Hitler."
From this post, we can see a great deal about zOz's motivation.
When someone attempts an obvious end run around science like this,
it is reasonable to conclude that this someone is _aware_ that he/she
is doing so, and is thus being deliberately deceptive.
The other entity known as Y*** K******** was known for trying every
possible avenue of circumvention. When stumping for Heyerdahl's
theories of white men civilizing Polynesia, he would sometimes vanish
for a few weeks, then come back with a new angle by which we must
accept his hypothesis without evidence. He would read a book on
statistics or logic, and ride back in to sci.arch declaring that his
was the "null hypothesis" and must be accepted by default. Or he'd
read Kuhn, and return to the group framing his opponents as supporters
of a "normative paradigm," who must realize our mistake and switch
to his revolutionary and equally valid model. Anything that didn't
involve the hard work of actual empirical observation.
-S
zOz
When compiling the text http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja7.html
with relevant extracts from my posts of the thread "Darwinism
refuted by adverse selection experiments", I noticed that the
post has not shown up on deja.com.
]
Hello Sverker Johansson!
It took long until I realized that the expression "to breed animals
with rare qualities" is ambiguous:
1) to breed (reproduce) animals with (existing) rare qualities
2) to breed (create) animals with (new) rare qualities
I always have intended the first meaning and you responded
rather to the second.
I think that you have given only in your previous but not in your
current note a possible explanation for my statement:
If Darwinism were right, it would be IN PRINCIPLE as simple to
reproduce animals with rare qualities as to reproduce normal ones,
but this is disproved by animal breeding and by special experiments.
Your current answer contains two elements:
1) the appearance of new variations for rare qualities
2) the selection of yet existing variations for rare qualities
The first is not relevant to my argument. And in the case of the
second one must explain why strains with such rare qualities
cannot be reproduced as easily as strains with more common
qualities. The most reasonable explanation within Darwinism seems
to me what I thought was your position in your previous note: 'the
less variation, the more difficult to reproduce'.
That rare qualities of single individuals cannot be easlily spread
in a population can be explained by recessive genes.
"There are dominant allels (gene variants) for properties which
only rarely appear in animal populations. If selective breeding or
another selection results in a large spread of such an allel, it
often becomes recessive. Such a dominance inversion contradicts
modern genetics, but can easily be explained by the fact that the
number of psychons needed for the rare properties to appear
are limited."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a11
There are also whole species which are difficult to reproduce. And
don't forget: if there is enough raw material and production capacity,
cars and computers can be multiplied by any factor. Good software
can be copied in the same way as bad software.
I fully agree with what you think are the essential parts of
Darwinism: reproduction (a concept based on finality!!!),
variation and selection. My opinion, however, is that if somebody
really understands these essential parts of Darwinism with
all their bases, consequences and implications, then this person
must conclude, that Darwinism cannot explain a continuous
evolution of species in the context of the known empirical facts.
That Chihuahuas emerged from wolves by a few thousand
years of selective breeding is an unproven (maybe even absurd)
hypothesis. As far as I know, wild little dogs still exist. The
facts only suggest that chihuahuas and wolves had a common
ancestor. That you explain away the failures to create mice with
substantial phenotypic changes by selection like this, seems
to me another example that you take evidence for evolution as
evidence for Darwinism.
see: http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
A selection scenario is always possible if one considers only one
single characteristic such as nails. But there are hundreds of
characteristics of humans which are more important than nails.
For macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell types
and other structures must evolve at the same time together with
behaviour patterns. Because it is generally accepted that negative
mutations are more likely than positive ones, the probability of
your selection scenario is so low that we must exclude it.
You are interested in the continuation of Crew's statement I quoted:
"... for I had become more and more critical of McDougall's use of
controls, of his neglect to maintain pedigrees and individual records.
This being so, there was nothing left for me to do save to repeat the
experiment myself".
But these criticisms are not justified, because Agar has confirmed
the results of McDougall. That even Agar's control line became
progressively better in learning the task (this fact has remained
unexplained until today) is very strong evidence for my theory.
There are not "innumerable examples supporting Darwinism". There
is rather one basic principle refuting Lamarckism: the pre-assumption
that all the information needed for organisms to survive is stored in
the DNA or in other material structures. That "the phenotype is
'scanned' and reverse-engineered into the germ-line" actually is
hardly conceivable.
All my theories are built on existing knowledge. They are a
continuation of the physics of Kepler. Kepler was the first who
substantially surpassed the astromony of Aristarchus of Samos
(ca. 310 - ca. 230 BC) by smashing the whole epicycle theory
and by replacing it by modern physical laws. Such laws seemed
to the contemporary scientists (even to Galiliei) as absurd as
psychons seem to you. Kepler explained nature in a panpsychist
way! Kepler's work was partially used and partially ridiculed and
fought by Galilei, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz and maybe even
by Bacon and Hobbes.
Almost all modern scientists lack an adequate understanding of
epistemology. If you think that one cannot take seriously a theory
which introduces the concepts 'soul' and even 'reincarnation', then
you should study epistemology, especially the one of Occam or of
Einstein: the only way to judge a theory is to look at its number of
concepts (the less the better) and at its testable consequences
and predictions. And one must never demand of the concepts of
a new theory to be explainable by the concepts of the old theory!
You think that modern physics is "quantitatively better by about
15 decimal places" 'than metaphysics of the times of Immanuel
Kant'. I suppose that this is an allusion to the alleged claim that
general relativity has been confirmed to 14 decimal places (and
QED to 11 decimal places). Franco Selleri for instance does not
take seriously such claims. In my opinion such claims (e.g. stated
by Roger Penrose, "The Nature of Space and Time", PUP, 1995)
are rather naive, especially if one takes into account that basic
units of measurement such as meter cannot be defined so exactly (an
error of 10-^14 corresponds to 1.5 mm when measuring the distance
between earth and sun) and that the kinematics of galaxies has
not even confirmed the first decimal place of ART. The introduction
of not observable matter is a pure ad hoc hypothesis and makes
ART an unfalsifiable theory.
The generalization from the experimentally confirmed photons to
photons mediating electrostatic forces is not justified. I have
explained this in my German page:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/a3.html.
Electrostatic attraction cannot even be explained qualitatively in
this way because under momentum conservation two bodies can only drift
apart by exchanging photons, and momentum conservation of photons
has been experimentally confirmed!
It is Hertz who distinguishes between electrostatic and electrodynamic
effects. He found 'electrodynamic forces' (e.m. waves) decreasing
inversely proportionally to the distance from the source, and
'electrostatic forces' decreasing inversely proportionally to the
distance square. In my example the disc charge and its actions at
a distance change at a frequency of 100 Megahertz and are
therefore not 'static' in your sense.
Don't you know the application of the Gauss divergence or flux or
integral theorem to incompressible liquids which leads to instantanous
effects at a distance?
That e.m. waves are derived from the interplay of the full set of
Maxwell's equations, not just from one, I do not deny. But if one
of these equations is based on actions at a distance, then the whole
derivation is based on actions at a distance.
You write: "I've read the original works by both Einstein and Darwin."
That must be an exageration. You probably have, as I have, read some
texts of them (at least in the case of Einstein). Do you know how many
works Einstein has published and how difficult some of them are to
understand? I have for instance the first two volumes of the 'Collected
Papers of A.E' which contain all his 1905 papers, and several other
books with texts of him. I have studied parts of the relativity paper,
parts of his papers on quanta and I have studied very carefully several
texts concerning EPR and epistemology. Most pages of my German
homepage deal with physics, especially with actions at a distance,
EPR and relativity.
Best regards
Wolfgang
PZ
<wissensch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> [ Reposting from 28-Feb-1999
>
> When compiling the text http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja7.html
> with relevant extracts from my posts of the thread "Darwinism
> refuted by adverse selection experiments", I noticed that the
> post has not shown up on deja.com.
> ]
>
>
> Hello Sverker Johansson!
>
>
> It took long until I realized that the expression "to breed animals
> with rare qualities" is ambiguous:
>
> 1) to breed (reproduce) animals with (existing) rare qualities
> 2) to breed (create) animals with (new) rare qualities
>
> I always have intended the first meaning and you responded
> rather to the second.
>
> I think that you have given only in your previous but not in your
> current note a possible explanation for my statement:
>
> If Darwinism were right, it would be IN PRINCIPLE as simple to
> reproduce animals with rare qualities as to reproduce normal ones,
> but this is disproved by animal breeding and by special experiments.
You've made a false conclusion here. You've ignored the possibility that
there may be good reasons that these "rare qualities" are rare -- I
don't see any reason in Darwinian evolution that we should presuppose
that all variants would have equal reproductive potential (quite the
opposite, actually).
>
> Your current answer contains two elements:
>
> 1) the appearance of new variations for rare qualities
> 2) the selection of yet existing variations for rare qualities
>
> The first is not relevant to my argument. And in the case of the
> second one must explain why strains with such rare qualities
> cannot be reproduced as easily as strains with more common
> qualities. The most reasonable explanation within Darwinism seems
> to me what I thought was your position in your previous note: 'the
> less variation, the more difficult to reproduce'.
>
>
> That rare qualities of single individuals cannot be easlily spread
> in a population can be explained by recessive genes.
>
> "There are dominant allels (gene variants) for properties which
> only rarely appear in animal populations. If selective breeding or
> another selection results in a large spread of such an allel, it
> often becomes recessive. Such a dominance inversion contradicts
> modern genetics, but can easily be explained by the fact that the
> number of psychons needed for the rare properties to appear
> are limited."
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a11
Um, what? This is a load of nonsense. "Dominant" and "recessive" are
relative terms, not intrinsic properties of alleles -- it makes no sense
at all to talk of an allele becoming recessive.
>
> There are also whole species which are difficult to reproduce. And
> don't forget: if there is enough raw material and production capacity,
> cars and computers can be multiplied by any factor. Good software
> can be copied in the same way as bad software.
Sure. *If* you use a good copy of the software that makes copies. But
what if the software you are trying to copy is the copying software, and
you have to use that software to copy itself?
[snip further descent into looniness]
--
pz
Adam Marczyk
[snip]
> I fully agree with what you think are the essential parts of
> Darwinism: reproduction (a concept based on finality!!!),
> variation and selection. My opinion, however, is that if somebody
> really understands these essential parts of Darwinism with
> all their bases, consequences and implications, then this person
> must conclude, that Darwinism cannot explain a continuous
> evolution of species in the context of the known empirical facts.
>
> That Chihuahuas emerged from wolves by a few thousand
> years of selective breeding is an unproven (maybe even absurd)
> hypothesis. As far as I know, wild little dogs still exist. The
> facts only suggest that chihuahuas and wolves had a common
> ancestor. That you explain away the failures to create mice with
> substantial phenotypic changes by selection like this, seems
> to me another example that you take evidence for evolution as
> evidence for Darwinism.
I'm not sure what you're driving at, but we have been able to breed lab mice
with substantial phenotypic changes. Different varieties of mice are offered
in most laboratory catalogs depending on what kind of experiments you want
to do - blind mice, overweight ones, hairless ones, etc.
[snip]
> Almost all modern scientists lack an adequate understanding of
> epistemology. If you think that one cannot take seriously a theory
> which introduces the concepts 'soul' and even 'reincarnation', then
> you should study epistemology, especially the one of Occam or of
> Einstein: the only way to judge a theory is to look at its number of
> concepts (the less the better) and at its testable consequences
> and predictions. And one must never demand of the concepts of
> a new theory to be explainable by the concepts of the old theory!
No, but vice versa. Unless your soul and reincarnation ideas are
materialistic, they're not science. I would love to know what kinds of
testable predictions follow from them.
> You think that modern physics is "quantitatively better by about
> 15 decimal places" 'than metaphysics of the times of Immanuel
> Kant'. I suppose that this is an allusion to the alleged claim that
> general relativity has been confirmed to 14 decimal places (and
> QED to 11 decimal places). Franco Selleri for instance does not
> take seriously such claims. In my opinion such claims (e.g. stated
> by Roger Penrose, "The Nature of Space and Time", PUP, 1995)
> are rather naive, especially if one takes into account that basic
> units of measurement such as meter cannot be defined so exactly (an
> error of 10-^14 corresponds to 1.5 mm when measuring the distance
> between earth and sun) and that the kinematics of galaxies has
> not even confirmed the first decimal place of ART. The introduction
> of not observable matter is a pure ad hoc hypothesis and makes
> ART an unfalsifiable theory.
ART? Are you referring to dark matter? Dark matter is very observable, just
not in terms of visible light, but rather in the gravitational force it
exerts.
> The generalization from the experimentally confirmed photons to
> photons mediating electrostatic forces is not justified. I have
> explained this in my German page:
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/a3.html.
> Electrostatic attraction cannot even be explained qualitatively in
> this way because under momentum conservation two bodies can only drift
> apart by exchanging photons, and momentum conservation of photons
> has been experimentally confirmed!
Conservation of momentum has nothing to do with it. Anyway, since photons
are massless you really can't speak of them as possessing momentum in the
classical (mv) sense. The exchange of photons can cause attraction as well
as repulsion.
[snip]
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
zOz
> = Adam Marczyk
>> = Wolfgang G.
> I'm not sure what you're driving at, but we have been able to
> breed lab mice with substantial phenotypic changes. Different
> varieties of mice are offered in most laboratory catalogs
> depending on what kind of experiments you want to do - blind
> mice, overweight ones, hairless ones, etc.
Very creative phenotypic changes indeed!
> Unless your soul and reincarnation ideas are materialistic,
> they're not science.
That's actually true if you start with a religion-style belief
in "scientific" materialism. Real science however is free from
"religious" pre-assumptions.
> I would love to know what kinds of testable predictions
> follow from them.
The number of psychons having evolved on earth is obviously
limited. That leads to lots of concrete predictions you can
find throughout my writings, e.g. concerning demography:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/demography.html
>> You think that modern physics is "quantitatively better by about
>> 15 decimal places" 'than metaphysics of the times of Immanuel
>> Kant'. I suppose that this is an allusion to the alleged claim that
>> general relativity has been confirmed to 14 decimal places (and
>> QED to 11 decimal places). Franco Selleri for instance does not
>> take seriously such claims. In my opinion such claims (e.g. stated
>> by Roger Penrose, "The Nature of Space and Time", PUP, 1995)
>> are rather naive, especially if one takes into account that basic
>> units of measurement such as meter cannot be defined so exactly (an
>> error of 10-^14 corresponds to 1.5 mm when measuring the distance
>> between earth and sun) and that the kinematics of galaxies has
>> not even confirmed the first decimal place of ART. The introduction
>> of not observable matter is a pure ad hoc hypothesis and makes
>> ART an unfalsifiable theory.
>
> ART?
Sorry, ART (Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie) should be GR (General
Relativity).
> Are you referring to dark matter?
Yes.
> Dark matter is very observable, just not in terms of visible
> light, but rather in the gravitational force it exerts.
A nice example of cyclic reasoning. (Dark matter is only
"observable" inasfar as we assume that the currently accepted
theories of gravitation are essentially correct.)
"How was Dark Matter calculated?":
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=543168824
>> Electrostatic attraction cannot even be explained qualitatively in
>> this way because under momentum conservation two bodies can only
>> drift apart by exchanging photons, and momentum conservation of
>> photons has been experimentally confirmed!
>
> Conservation of momentum has nothing to do with it.
Momentum conservation is both an empirical fact and an elegant
physical principle.
It is obvious that earth and sun exchange momentum under
momentum conservation. Because instantaneous actions at a
distance are against naive materialism (and modern physics in
the same way as neo-Darwinism essentially derives from naive
materialism), this momentum exchange is explained by "virtual
photons".
> Anyway, since photons are massless you really can't speak of
> them as possessing momentum in the classical (mv) sense. The
> exchange of photons can cause attraction as well as repulsion.
Yes, I know. The concept "virtual photon" (unlike Einstein's
original "photon") is as a typical religious concept not
subject to sound (i.e. scientific) reasoning.
"Instantaneous propagation of the 'electrostatic force'?":
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=535547938
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=535963467
Cheers, Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html
Adam Marczyk
zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91m2bd$fqn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > = Adam Marczyk
> >> = Wolfgang G.
>
> > I'm not sure what you're driving at, but we have been able to
> > breed lab mice with substantial phenotypic changes. Different
> > varieties of mice are offered in most laboratory catalogs
> > depending on what kind of experiments you want to do - blind
> > mice, overweight ones, hairless ones, etc.
>
> Very creative phenotypic changes indeed!
You should look at the pictures in one of these catalogs sometime. They
don't look at all like normal mice.
> > Unless your soul and reincarnation ideas are materialistic,
> > they're not science.
>
> That's actually true if you start with a religion-style belief
> in "scientific" materialism. Real science however is free from
> "religious" pre-assumptions.
No, sorry, you don't get to define what "real" science is. If you abandon
materialism as a basic assumption, science loses all explanatory power,
because anything can be the result of a miracle. Materialism is not a
religious belief, but a basic principle of the physical world that has never
been shown to have any exceptions. Anything you can offer a testable
explanation for is by definition materialistic.
> > I would love to know what kinds of testable predictions
> > follow from them.
>
> The number of psychons having evolved on earth is obviously
> limited. That leads to lots of concrete predictions you can
> find throughout my writings, e.g. concerning demography:
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/demography.html
Whatever a "psychon" is, this page doesn't mention them.
> >> You think that modern physics is "quantitatively better by about
> >> 15 decimal places" 'than metaphysics of the times of Immanuel
> >> Kant'. I suppose that this is an allusion to the alleged claim that
> >> general relativity has been confirmed to 14 decimal places (and
> >> QED to 11 decimal places). Franco Selleri for instance does not
> >> take seriously such claims. In my opinion such claims (e.g. stated
> >> by Roger Penrose, "The Nature of Space and Time", PUP, 1995)
> >> are rather naive, especially if one takes into account that basic
> >> units of measurement such as meter cannot be defined so exactly (an
> >> error of 10-^14 corresponds to 1.5 mm when measuring the distance
> >> between earth and sun) and that the kinematics of galaxies has
> >> not even confirmed the first decimal place of ART. The introduction
> >> of not observable matter is a pure ad hoc hypothesis and makes
> >> ART an unfalsifiable theory.
> >
> > ART?
>
> Sorry, ART (Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie) should be GR (General
> Relativity).
>
> > Are you referring to dark matter?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Dark matter is very observable, just not in terms of visible
> > light, but rather in the gravitational force it exerts.
>
> A nice example of cyclic reasoning. (Dark matter is only
> "observable" inasfar as we assume that the currently accepted
> theories of gravitation are essentially correct.)
Is there any evidence to show otherwise? No? Because there's a whole lot of
evidence to show that they are.
> "How was Dark Matter calculated?":
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=543168824
>
> >> Electrostatic attraction cannot even be explained qualitatively in
> >> this way because under momentum conservation two bodies can only
> >> drift apart by exchanging photons, and momentum conservation of
> >> photons has been experimentally confirmed!
> >
> > Conservation of momentum has nothing to do with it.
>
> Momentum conservation is both an empirical fact and an elegant
> physical principle.
>
> It is obvious that earth and sun exchange momentum under
> momentum conservation. Because instantaneous actions at a
> distance are against naive materialism (and modern physics in
> the same way as neo-Darwinism essentially derives from naive
> materialism), this momentum exchange is explained by "virtual
> photons".
Okay. And?
Don't make the mistake of thinking the exchange of photons could only cause
repulsion. The interaction of a photon hitting an atom is not analogous to
macroscopic interactions; it's not as if the photon hits the atom, bounces
off it and therefore pushes it away. For one thing, if this was what
occurred, the photon would bounce off with speed less than c as some of its
momentum was transferred. According to Einstein, this isn't possible; light
always travels at c. That's why I said classical momentum is not applicable
at this level.
> > Anyway, since photons are massless you really can't speak of
> > them as possessing momentum in the classical (mv) sense. The
> > exchange of photons can cause attraction as well as repulsion.
>
> Yes, I know. The concept "virtual photon" (unlike Einstein's
> original "photon") is as a typical religious concept not
> subject to sound (i.e. scientific) reasoning.
First materialism, now virtual particles are "religious concepts." Can you
please explain what you mean by that term in a way more substantive than
"something you don't like?"
> "Instantaneous propagation of the 'electrostatic force'?":
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=535547938
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=535963467
>
>
> Cheers, Wolfgang
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
zOz
if you weren't PZ, I would dismiss your reply as a tyical reaction
of a half-educated believer in scientific orthodoxy or of a naive
"pack follower".
>> If Darwinism were right, it would be IN PRINCIPLE as simple to
>> reproduce animals with rare qualities as to reproduce normal
>> ones, but this is disproved by animal breeding and by special
>> experiments.
>
> You've made a false conclusion here. You've ignored the
> possibility that there may be good reasons that these "rare
> qualities" are rare -- I don't see any reason in Darwinian
> evolution that we should presuppose that all variants would have
> equal reproductive potential (quite the opposite, actually).
It's not me who made a false conclusion, it's you who are unable
or unwilling to understand something not in full agreement with
your current brain architecture.
Don't you know that Darwinism requires Malthusianism?
Don't you know that neo-Darwinism only works if more offspring
is born than is able to survive?
Don't you understand the principle of exponential growth?
1.01^1000 = 21,000
0.99^1000 = 0.000,043
Take 100 expensive little dogs or 100 intelligent drug-dogs with
enough genetic variability. According to Darwin (i.e. Malthus)
there is no reason at all why it should not be possible to increase
these populations to 200, to 400, to 800 and so on. Do you assume
that it is apriori not normal that a female dog can give birth
to 2 surviving females?
Do you think that it is pure chance that in many developed
countries the number of births has been close to the number
of deaths over 10, 20 or even more years now?
>> That rare qualities of single individuals cannot be easlily spread
>> in a population can be explained by recessive genes.
>>
>> "There are dominant allels (gene variants) for properties which
>> only rarely appear in animal populations. If selective breeding or
>> another selection results in a large spread of such an allel, it
>> often becomes recessive. Such a dominance inversion contradicts
>> modern genetics, but can easily be explained by the fact that the
>> number of psychons needed for the rare properties to appear
>> are limited."
>> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a11
>
> Um, what? This is a load of nonsense. "Dominant" and "recessive"
> are relative terms, not intrinsic properties of alleles -- it
> makes no sense at all to talk of an allele becoming recessive.
Dominance inversion is generally accepted (Lexikon der Biochemie
und Molekularbiologie, Herder, 1991, --> Dominanz). It is explained
by the effect of other genes, by dominance modifiers and by
environmental factors.
Let us assume an animal species with a more or less constant
population size. Let us assume that around 10 percent have green
eyes and the rest red eyes.
Let us further assume that the offspring of red-eyed parents
is always red-eyed.
A possible genetic explanation may be:
- There are two alleles ("green" and "red") for the corresponding
genetic trait.
- The allele "red" is recessive and "green" dominant.
- "green" is randomly distributed in the whole population with
a frequency of 5%. (Therefore around 10% have at least one
allele "green" and green eyes.)
In this case the psychon theory makes the follwong prediction:
- If selective breeding results in a large spread of the allele
"green" within the species, it will become (more and more)
recessive.
> [snip further descent into looniness]
I know, to the orthodox loon, all he's unable to understand seems
deep truth if comes from orthodoxy and looniness if it comes from
heterodoxy.
Cheers, Wolfgang
The only essentially correct explanation of life and evolution:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
PZ
<wissensch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Hi PZ Myers,
>
> if you weren't PZ, I would dismiss your reply as a tyical reaction
> of a half-educated believer in scientific orthodoxy or of a naive
> "pack follower".
>
>
> >> If Darwinism were right, it would be IN PRINCIPLE as simple to
> >> reproduce animals with rare qualities as to reproduce normal
> >> ones, but this is disproved by animal breeding and by special
> >> experiments.
> >
> > You've made a false conclusion here. You've ignored the
> > possibility that there may be good reasons that these "rare
> > qualities" are rare -- I don't see any reason in Darwinian
> > evolution that we should presuppose that all variants would have
> > equal reproductive potential (quite the opposite, actually).
>
> It's not me who made a false conclusion, it's you who are unable
> or unwilling to understand something not in full agreement with
> your current brain architecture.
>
> Don't you know that Darwinism requires Malthusianism?
No.
>
> Don't you know that neo-Darwinism only works if more offspring
> is born than is able to survive?
No. I can envision lots of ways gene frequencies could change over time
even if 100% of every parent's offspring reach reproductive age.
>
> Don't you understand the principle of exponential growth?
>
> 1.01^1000 = 21,000
> 0.99^1000 = 0.000,043
Yes.
>
> Take 100 expensive little dogs or 100 intelligent drug-dogs with
> enough genetic variability. According to Darwin (i.e. Malthus)
> there is no reason at all why it should not be possible to increase
> these populations to 200, to 400, to 800 and so on. Do you assume
> that it is apriori not normal that a female dog can give birth
> to 2 surviving females?
I have no idea what you are babbling about now. You claimed that rare
qualities ought to propagate as well as common ones; that is not
necessarily true.
>
> Do you think that it is pure chance that in many developed
> countries the number of births has been close to the number
> of deaths over 10, 20 or even more years now?
No. Again, though, I have no idea what you are trying to get at here.
Which is simply not true. If the only two alleles of concern are "red"
and "green", their properties with respect to one another will not
change without the introduction of new alleles or new interactions with
other properties of the organism.
We can do your experiment. We can raise a population of red-eyed flies;
the "red" allele is dominant to the "white" or white-eyed allele. We can
maintain this population for many generations. It doesn't matter how
long -- we don't see upon introducing the "white" allele to this
population that "red" has suddenly become recessive.
>
>
> > [snip further descent into looniness]
>
> I know, to the orthodox loon, all he's unable to understand seems
> deep truth if comes from orthodoxy and looniness if it comes from
> heterodoxy.
Your "deep truth" seems to have little relationship to reality.
--
pz
lenny
> Don't you know that neo-Darwinism only works if more offspring
> is born than is able to survive?
Actually it would work fine even if all offspring survive but some reproduce
more successfully than do others.
> Don't you understand the principle of exponential growth?
>
> 1.01^1000 = 21,000
> 0.99^1000 = 0.000,043
What is the point here? If you are talking about exponential growth in a
population then surely you are not going to be starting with a number <1.
> Take 100 expensive little dogs or 100 intelligent drug-dogs with
> enough genetic variability. According to Darwin (i.e. Malthus)
> there is no reason at all why it should not be possible to increase
> these populations to 200, to 400, to 800 and so on. Do you assume
> that it is apriori not normal that a female dog can give birth
> to 2 surviving females?
Domestic animals in breeding programs don't breed at will, generally, they
are carefully matched and permitted to breed and only to the extent which
the breeder desires. Not all females would likely be permitted to breed at
all.
> Do you think that it is pure chance that in many developed
> countries the number of births has been close to the number
> of deaths over 10, 20 or even more years now?
What is your point?
ksta...@my-deja.com
zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> (Liver or kidney failures are nowadays
> tyical outcomes of "highly active antiretroviral therapy".)
If only they could Px alpha lipoic acid and CoQ-10 and milk thistle
and NAC this might not be the case so many times.
James Cobb
----------------------- AIDS & TERROR ----------------------
In his 16 December 2000 "Re: HIV - a 'scientific' var-
iant of Hitler's Star of David" post, z...@z.lol.li says:
HIV positivity has become...a 'scientific' variant
of the Star of David as used by the National Social-
ist ideology.
...
There was an end to Hitler's Star of David, so there
will be an end to the suffering from being classified
as 'HIV positive'.
Lily E Kay, in her 1993 book,
The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech,
the Rockefeller Foundation, and the
Rise of the New Biology,
writes:
By the late 1960s the potential of social control
through molecular biology was shared by its leading
practitioners.
Reflecting on the new biology, [Linus] Pauling sug-
gested a "yellow star" policy of eugenic prophylaxis.
There should be tatooed on the forehead of every
young person a symbol showing the possession of
the sickle-cell gene or whatever other similar
gene....It is my opinion that legislation along
this line, compulsory testing for defective gene
before marriage, and some form of semi-public
display of this possession, should be adopted.
Yes, z...@z.lol.li's comparison is appropriate just in so
far as it helps expose
THE FILTH.
----
The Kay quote's at page 276 of--
Lily E Kay
The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefel-
ler Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology
Oxford University Press
1993
304+ pages
ISBN 0 19 505812 7 hb
511143 5 pb
The Pauling quote's from--
Linus Pauling
"Reflections on the New Biology"
UCLA Law Review, 15 (1968), page 269
and is also quoted at page 46 of--
Troy Duster
Backdoor to Eugenics
Routledge
1990
Caltech = California Institute of Technology
I format quotes for readability.
This critical essay was composed 25 December 2000.