From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Peter Nyikos' Massive Mis-direction, Part 79
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:03:02 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[--introductory comments deleted--]

>>> = from Ron Graham post (Hentoff speaking?)
>> = Lyman
> = Nyikos

>>> Once implantation takes place, this being has all the genetic
	 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> information within that makes each human being unique.
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Wrong. Wrong. WrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrong!!!!!!

> Truly a case of massive denial, as will now be seen.

As opposed to a case of massive mis-direction, as will now be seen.

>> From "Abortion and DNA Fingerprinting and Abortion" by Edward Manier,
>> Philosophy and Reilly Center, University of Notre Dame:

[--baseless speculation about Edward Manier deleted--]

>> 	Why would the religious right put forth such a shoddy case to
>> 	buttress their claim that human life begins at conception? 

> "Their claim"? 'twas the American Medical Association that made the
> claim in the middle of the 19th century.

I'm glad you made it all the way from the pre-scientific speculations
of Aristotle to the 19th century, Peter.

[--speculation about the 'Orwellian' nature of the change from conception
to implantation as the beginning of pregnancy deleted--]

> "Put forth"?  'twas the geneticists in the first half of this century
> (but what do you expect from a group whose first member was a Roman
> Catholic monk, eh, Chris?) who decided that the chromosomes of the
> zygote make each human being unique.

Well, now we're up to 1950.  Progress is our most important product! :-)

> But note something else: Chris Lyman authored his massive denial in
> response to the word "implantation."  Manier uses the word "conception".
> And, despite the revisionism I spoke about above, he really understands
> it to mean "fertilization", as will become clear below.  Perhaps the
> biologists, whom he pretends to know a great deal about below, have
> not yet caught up with the American College of Ob/Gyn.

Perhaps I did miss the distinction between fertilization and implantation.

	1. Does my response to Mr. Hentoff fail because of this?

	2. Who gives a rip?

	3. Why the misdirection?

[--lexigraphical humor deleted--]

>> 	Genes do not determine human individuality.  The phenotypic
>> 	(structural, functional, behavioral) variance in human popu-
>> 	lations

> From "unique" to "individual", and now of course all the excess 
> baggage of a sophisticated individualistic philosophy is smuggled in;

What is so wonderful about genetic uniqueness, Peter?  Are you comfortable
basing a pro-life argument on that?  Manier doesn't seem to think that
that's a good idea.

>>      is explained by genes and two crucially significant
>>      additional classes of variables:  environment, and interaction
>> 	of genes and environment.  Development does not occur unless
>> 	genes and environment interact: read beyond the warning labels
>> 	on alcoholic beverages or the latest news about smoking and
>> 	fetal development. 

> Great.  Now we are so far from this developing human being UNIQUE
> that we might as well start talking about whether this human will
> become a serial killer, or a Nobel Prize winner.

That is precisely the argument that Manier wishes to shoot down, Peter.

>>       Human chromosomes specifically lack infor-
>>  	 mation necessary for the development of the human brain.

> Manier *does* mean "fertilization" rather than "implantation",
> else why would he be harping on chromosomes?  The rest of the quote
> dispels all doubt.

Again, does Manier's argument fail because of the blurring of
fertilization and implantation?  What's your point?

>	Inference of the presence of a specific and unique human being
>	from evidence that the fertilized human egg has a full
>	complement of human chromosomes (preformationism) has utterly
>	no influence in current biological thought.

> Manier is not above some lexicographical revisionism himself.  If I 
> recall correctly, "preformationism" refers to the medieval theory
> of a miniature human ("homunculus") being present in the sperm.  [Of
> course, the whole Manier excerpt is so permeated with equivocation,
> it could even be taken to be an attack on the homunculus theory AND
> NOTHING ELSE.]

But it isn't.

_______________________________End of annotated excerpt___________

> I would like to ask Edward Manier just when the whole field of 
> sociobiology, complete with a book titled _The Selfish Gene_ utterly
> lost its influence in current biological thought.

Two observations:

	1. _The Selfish Gene_ by Richard Dawkins expounds, among other
	   ideas, the notion that people like Sir Isaac Newton are
	   genetically driven to create scholarly works as perfect
	   copies of themselves.  Is that concept something you really
	   want to hang your ideological hat on?

	2. "Selfish genes," or more precisely "selfish DNA," refers to
	   parasitic patterns of DNA that "selfishly" replicate
	   themselves, even to the detriment of the organism.  I wonder
	   why Dr. Dawkins would co-opt a specific genetic term for
 	   the title of a book?

> I would also like to ask him just when Jerome Lejeune, world-class
> geneticist who discovered the genetic basis of Down's Syndrome, utterly
> lost his influence in current biological thought.  No doubt Chris Lyman
> can persuade him to provide us with documentation of this astounding
> factoid.

> Jerome Lejeune is a member of several national Academies of Science,
> including the French, Swedish, and American.  I even read in one place
> that he is a Nobel Laureate, although I have not been able to confirm
> this (perhaps because the places where I have looked so far are several
> years out of date).

> Dr. Lejeune testified in the State of Tennessee Circuit Court for Blount
> County, in Maryville, in the August 1989 custody dispute over frozen
> human embryos, Davis v. Davis and King.

[--excerpts from Dr. Lejeune's testimony in Davis v. Davis and King
deleted to save bandwidth; find Nyikos' article and read it, if you
are interested--]

Lejeune engages in an interesting thought experiment; there's much
speculation, an unsupported assertion, but no reference to disciplines
relevant to the issue: embryology, neurobiology, psychobiology, and
anthropology.

If Lejeune was testifying on behalf of Mrs. Davis, the court found his
evidence less than compelling.  Mrs. Davis did not win that case.

[--deletions--]

Btw, Ron Graham and I had an email exchange about Hentoff's article.  My
parting words were that I looked forward to seeing Part 2 of the Hentoff
posts.  If Part 2 was indeed posted, I never saw it.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57438 talk.politics.misc:69325 talk.religion.misc:27320 misc.legal:23138