Easy AdSense by Unreal

Conservator Google Feed

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Meta

RSS feedburner feed

Archives

A Game to Play

Mathematicians like talking in terms of things like, ‘the eye’, ‘the eye of God’, ‘the womb’ or ‘the matrix’ to represent their various logarithms and what the graphic representation of that reminds them of. A matrix can be represented in many ways and can be used in everything from genetics to Bible prophecy. I will provide you with a very basic understanding so we can move on and talk about how more recent scientific research has put a strange twist (or spiral) on the abortion issue.
Take a deck of cards and start with a sort of 52 pick –up; then arrange them in columns of 13 each. Now we can play a game with one or more people. Pick a card from the leftmost column. Next, you must match the number and color of the card from a card selected from one of the other columns. If you are playing with another person, obviously take turns. Each person first turns over a card in the leftmost column. If the card you needed to match actually ends up being on the left; for example if one person turned over a 2 of diamonds, and the 2 of hearts ends up being also in the column on the left, you will move the 2 of hearts over to one of the piles on the right, and swap it out so there is another card on the left.
(If you are wondering why I told you to first scatter the cards before arranging them in columns; that was just to be cruel.)
To make the game interesting you can do various things like, assign each person just one column on the right, and they must try to make their match from the left with only that column. Keep score. This is a rough understanding of what a matrix can be about.
Now here’s where it gets genetic. If you can imagine that every time a deuce is matched with another red deuce, all of the other cards have to be turned over, everyone’s score goes back to zero, except for the person with the red deuce, and you sort of start over, you might have something similar to what sometimes happens in genetics.
Sometimes, rare matches within any possible number of ties occur, and those matches are game changers. These don’t necessarily involve mutations. They can be matches like those that cause 2 brown haired people to have a baby with green eyes, and everyone else is saying, “So who do you suppose is the father of that baby?” – Or perhaps in our current culture, “So who do you suppose is the mother?” The game changers can cause unfortunate illnesses to appear. Some of these illnesses, it has been proposed by people studying them, may actually have been a means of survival for the species in a given place and time. I can’t go into the details of such illnesses, but Tay-Sachs is one worth studying with regard to this. Some game changers, like Tay-Sachs may have involved mutations.
Studies done in the last 40 years pertaining to gibbons (a sort of primate) in southeast Asia have produced startling results. ( I was startled) . The conclusion drawn was that these primates all must have developed, or evolved from a common ancestor, but the changes discernable from one island or locale to another were too great to be accounted for by Natural Selection in the time period that they, must have occurred in. It couldn’t be explained by any of the usual plain old vanilla evolution theories, either.
Various solutions were proposed. One of them can be visualized in a way by a sort of matrix, not unlike the one I described above. You might at this point have realized that the ability for a species to completely change or ‘obtain’ some radically different features is actually built into the ‘deck’ or the chromosomes. Whether or not these sudden, though rare – from a probability standpoint, changes survive may have to do with the time and place in which they are introduced.
Now, let me at this point proffer: If some of the cards are destroyed, or if you are playing with multiple decks and a deck is destroyed, or if the people who pick the cards are destroyed, there is no game.
Ironically, 80 some years ago a woman named Margaret Sanger proposed that the abortion of certain peoples, people who in her mind were failures in society, people who were of lower economic classes, people of southern European ancestry – the list goes on – would have been a good thing for the species. Margaret Sanger became recognized as the founder of Planned Parenthood. Hillary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger award in April of 2009; the story goes on . There is a great belief, based upon things Sanger wrote, that she would like to have seen the African Americans curtailed as a race.
The newest evidence from genetics of course, reveals that she was not only wrong about what would make a species productive, thriving and successful, but that the contrary is in fact the case. This irony was actually predicted by G.K. Chesterton in his marvelous book – Eugenics and Other Evils. Sanger was a Eugenicist.
Chesterton may not have understood the extents to which the eugenicists were wrong!  It is becoming ever more clear that the ‘scientific sense of responsibility towards the species’ (that the Eugenicists claimed to have embraced) has actually shifted in terms of how it should be realized in the direction of understanding that the destruction of any of the players or cards actually damns the species. In other words, the wholesale abortion of members of the species not only doesn’t purify the race, but it can actually eliminate those changes that are ‘built into the deck’ for the survivability of the race.
Anyone who presents the argument that the ‘right to chose’ and abortion of any unwanted fetus is beneficial for the survival of man and womankind is not really concerned about the survival of mankind, but is more interested in a sort of social or economic expediency, or is under the illusion that abortions will cause crime rates and poverty to go down.
I had an acquaintance who cited to me a certain statistic that in a certain locale in the United States the crime rate had gone down, and they attributed that to the increased number of abortions. My reply was, “So let me understand this: the people ‘responsible enough’ to eliminate unwanted births did so, and the irresponsible people who didn’t care about ‘society’ continued to have babies, and the net result with this new population of offspring of irresponsible people was that the crime rate went down?” She was, of course, struck dumb.

Copyright 2010 by Juan Zapatero


One Comment

 




XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>