The Immortal Coil

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 20-35

November 13, 2007

8:24 P.M.

.'

......What is the "immortal coil"? And is it really "immortal"? Dawkins argues that DNA, the immortal coil, never dies off, it is passed from generation to generation. Dawkins connects it to a coil, because in theory, a coil is never ending, and because the shape of a DNA is a "double helix." (Dawkins makes those two terms sound like the same thing.) However, he also says that each time DNA and genes are passed from generation to generation they are modified somewhat. In other words, you get half of your DNA from your mother and the other half from your father. However, these halves can always be variations as they are mixed with your other parent's half. In other words, it is not physically possible for some one to have your exact same DNA (unless you are an identical twin). And even if you have an identical twin, your children will not have the same DNA, as each sperm and egg have different genetic configurations. During the configuring of the sperm or the egg, some of your own personal genes will be lost of greatly modified, so in theory it DNA is not eternal. Your DNA isn't immortal: it dies when you die. I don't agree with the term he uses in order to describe DNA to the reader; it is very misleading. Our DNA does die eventually, so what does he mean when he calls it immortal?

.

......There must be a reason as to why Dawkins refers to the DNA as the "immortal coil". This is probably due to the fact that the idea of DNA is never going to die. Even if everyone has a different DNA and it dies when you die, the idea of DNA will always be present for humanity. It helps us (and always will) to trace historical events (illegitimate children, criminals, etc.), to solve daily crimes, and to identify us as separate human beings. Our DNA is our identity, and that is something that will never die because it lives in memories. DNA cannot be stolen, so even if they rob your social security, forge your signature, or falsify your fingerprints, you will be able to prove that you are innocent.

The Selfish Gene: Introduction

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 1- 20

Nov. 13, 2007

7:48 P.M.

Biology, Zoology, and Some Misinterpretation:

......As I read Chapter 1 I realized I really didn't know the difference between the two, and I soon learned knowing it was essential as Dawkins usually compares them. While reading I came to the conclusion that they had to be very different things; however, now that I look at the definitions, zoology just seems a branch of biology. According to Wikipedia, zoology is the "biological discipline which involves the study of animals," while Biology is the "scientific study of life." However, my conclusion came from Dawkins own interpretation of what zoology is. "Zoology is still a minority subject in universities, and even those who choose to study it often make their decision without appreciating its profound philosophical significance (p. 1)." Dawkins recurs to studies referring to zoology in order to form his own conclusions about human and animal behavior. In my opinion he is completely misinterpreting the whole purpose of zoologists, though. I think zoologists are supposed to study the facts, not meddle with opinions and bias. I am not necessarily saying I disagree with his arguments, but Dawkins completely mixes opinions with facts. By manipulating the definition of zoology in order to get his point accross, Dawkins takes some credibility away from his work. This different interpretation will probably make his point harder to prove, but not impossible.

.

Are Humans Altruistic or Selfish?

......This question can be viewed from many different perspectives. Even if I don't agree with his interpretation of zoology, I have to agree with what Dawkins argues with respect to this question. We are altruistic when our reputation is on the line or when we have to put up a facade infront of others (like when we are taking part in an active role of society), yet, deep inside we are all very selfish. As a society we are very giving and altruistic. We want to fight for a common good and we are willing to sacrifice in order to attain this. But, if it wasn't for everyone else fighting for the same cause, then we wouldn't be willing to give up anything for any common good. One example that Dawkins used was the comparision between abortion and the killing of animals. "A human foetus, with no more human feeling than an amoeba, enjoys a reverence and legal protection far in excess of those granted to an adult chimpanzee (p. 10)." Dawkins argues that we care about an amoeba-like fetus that has no feelings and we provide them with certain rights and protection; however, an animal that is fully capable to understand and to feel doesn't even have the right to live. I had never seen that perspective, and as shocking as it was, it is very true. We care more about what looks good in society's eyes than what is actually good. We would rather bring an unhappy and abused child into this world, than protect the happiness of a lion pup. How ironic is that? What if all we think is right is actually wrong? I really think that humans need to start reevaluating morality, what's right, and even more important what's wrong.

What song would Hamlet choose?

November 7, 2007

8:47 P.M.

....If I were Hamlet I would have chosen the song Leech by Incubus in order to expose my personality. I chose this song, because Hamlet is a very peculiar character that constantly confuses the audience as to what his real feelings and actions are. He isn't a very reliable character. The audience can never be sure if what he says during his solliloquies is actually true, or if it's just his double personality speaking. I think that during Act III, the reader really gets to see Hamlet's duality and madness. When I heard this song, I could imagine Hamlet saying the lyrics to himself. This song has some sort of duality to it; it has this bipolar sense to it. I mean, each couple of phrases complement eachother with complete paradoxes. Just as well, a line that really impacted me was "Your fictional, plastic alibi..." This is so true with Hamlet, because as stated before we don't know if what Hamlet is a reliable narrator.

LEECH- By: Incubus

Does it make you indie?
Does it make you proud...to talk the world
into a paper bag?
Spotty stain of "I'm ok", you're not ok!
Yes, men too, can be on the rag.
"I'm in over my head, I need a pick me up!"
Whoa Ho Oh Ho
It's easy to get high when your'e standing on our backs man.
Will anything ever be good enough for you?
Whoa Ho Oh Ho
Stand on your own, hold your water if you can.
Chorus:
The ride's over. Did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over. Fairing well?!
The ride's over. Did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over. Fairing well?!
Not on my time
It isn't fair to mention, but it awes the crowd
Your fictional, plastic alibi
So take another hit, steal another line
Did you ever meet a leech who was good at goodbyes?
When you were down i always picked you up
Why didn't I recognize that everything was never fine?
I'm kicking myself that i shared spit with you
So fuck yourself
And fuck this bleeding heart of mine
The ride's over, did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over, fair thee well
The ride's over, did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over, fair thee well
Not on my time
When you were down i always picked you up
Why didn't I recognize that everything was never fine?
I'm kicking myself that i shared spit with you
So fuck yourself
And fuck this bleeding heart of mine
The ride's over, did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over, fair thee well
The ride's over, did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over, fair thee well
The ride's over

Paraphrasing Exercises in Class

Paraphrasing Exercises

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/02/

1. ORIGINAL: "The Antarctic is the vast source of cold on our planet, just as the sun is the source of our heat, and it exerts tremendous control on our climate," [Jacques] Cousteau told the camera. "The cold ocean water around Antarctica flows north to mix with warmer water from the tropics, and its upwellings help to cool both the surface water and our atmosphere. Yet the fragility of this regulating system is now threatened by human activity." From "Captain Cousteau," Audubon (May 1990):17.

PARAPHRASING: In the documentary, Cousteau explained to his audience in greater depth about the planet's climatical situation. The sun is an essential part of our existence and warmth, while the Antarctic is a very important source of cold also necessary for our existence. These two aspects vastly control the climate on planet Earth. The cold water currents that mix with the warmer, Northern ones help maintain stable temperatures and livable conditions for ourselves. However, this natural cycle that assures our own survival is currently endangered by our own activities.

2. ORIGINAL: The twenties were the years when drinking was against the law, and the law was a bad joke because everyone knew of a local bar where liquor could be had. They were the years when organized crime ruled the cities, and the police seemed powerless to do anything against it. Classical music was forgotten while jazz spread throughout the land, and men like Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie became the heroes of the young. The flapper was born in the twenties, and with her bobbed hair and short skirts, she symbolized, perhaps more than anyone or anything else, America's break with the past. From Kathleen Yancey, English 102 Supplemental Guide (1989): 25.

PARAPHRASING: The 1920s were marked by a foolish Prohibition, organized crime, and corrupt and helpless police. Everyone knew how to get liquor, crime was everywhere, and the police couldn't do very much without risking their lives. Jazz took over the scene, leaving Classical music in the past and stars like "Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie" rose to fame giving the youth hope to fight. Just as well, the flappers came about with their "bobbed hair and short skirts" to represent the future.

3. ORIGINAL: 3. Of the more than 1000 bicycling deaths each year, three-fourths are caused by head injuries. Half of those killed are school-age children. One study concluded that wearing a bike helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. In an accident, a bike helmet absorbs the shock and cushions the head. From "Bike Helmets: Unused Lifesavers," Consumer Reports (May 1990): 348.

PARAPHRASING: Wearing a helmet can reduce the risk of hurting your head when you fall of a bike by almost 85%. This is due to the fac that the helmet ¨absorbs the shock¨which in turn protects the head by smoothing out the fall. Three-fourths of 1000 the deaths caused by bicycle accidents are caused by head trauma. Half of these deaths are children.

4. ORIGINAL: Matisse is the best painter ever at putting the viewer at the scene. He's the most realistic of all modern artists, if you admit the feel of the breeze as necessary to a landscape and the smell of oranges as essential to a still life. "The Casbah Gate" depicts the well-known gateway Bab el Aassa, which pierces the southern wall of the city near the sultan's palace. With scrubby coats of ivory, aqua, blue, and rose delicately fenced by the liveliest gray outline in art history, Matisse gets the essence of a Tangier afternoon, including the subtle presence of the bowaab, the sentry who sits and surveys those who pass through the gate. From Peter Plagens, "Bright Lights." Newsweek (26 March 1990): 50.

PARAPHRASING: Matisse is one of the very few painters that can make the viewer get the sensations lived in the painting, although he is a modern artist he is also very realistic. "The Casbah Gate" is a painting that shows "the well-known gateway Bab el Aassa, which pierces the southern wall of the city near the sultan's palace." Matisse captures the essence of a Tangier afternoon perfectly: all the colors lived in the view that capture the "art history", as well as "the subtle presence of the bowaab, the sentry who sits and surveys those who pass through the gate."

5. ORIGINAL: While the Sears Tower is arguably the greatest achievement in skyscraper engineering so far, it's unlikely that architects and engineers have abandoned the quest for the world's tallest building. The question is: Just how high can a building go? Structural engineer William LeMessurier has designed a skyscraper nearly one-half mile high, twice as tall as the Sears Tower. And architect Robert Sobel claims that existing technology could produce a 500-story building. From Ron Bachman, "Reaching for the Sky." Dial (May 1990): 15.

PARAPHRASING: Architects and engineers have yet to finished their search "for the world's tallest building," even if the Sears Tower is without a doubt the best triumph in modern day engineering. Many engineers have still bigger plans for the world's buildings, but how big can these plans be? William LeMessurier designed a building "half as tall as the Sears Tower" and would be one mile high. Just as well, Robert Sobel, it's enthusiastic in saying that with the modern technology humans would be capable of building a "500 story building."

Paraphrasing Excercise

Is this paraphrasing?

Activity from: http://gsi.berkeley.edu/resources/conduct/exercises.html

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Yes

The Art of Denial

The Power and the Glory (Final Entry)

Page 202-221

October 26, 2007

10:01 A.M.

...

......Towards the end of the novel, the author once again recurrs to parallelism in order to tell the story. The connection I made to the priest was the usual state of denial and the need to separate oneself from reality; however, I must admit the ending left me very confused.

.

.......After the priest was supposedly shot, the reader gets a look back at the Fellows household. Although it is never directly stated, the reader is lead to believe something happened to Coral Fellows and her parents are on their way back home. It is obvious Trixy Fellows wants to act as if Coral didn't exist, as if she didn't relate to them at all. "But we agreed, dear, didn't we, that it was better to say nothing at all, ever. We mustn't be morbid...We've got our own life to lead (211)." She wants to be separated from Coral's memory, she wants nothing to do with it. She hides her sorrow in her perkiness, in the enthusiasm the future holds. The future is a new beginning that will help her part from Coral and from her memory. Starting fresh at her sister's house will help Trixy forget about Coral that way she won't need to be in denial anymore, Coral's memory will just vanish on its own.

.

......Just as well, the reader sees Mr. Tench's denial. He has finally heard back from his wife in England, but to his dissappointment she wants "to make things legal. Divorce...(215)." It is quite obvious that Mr. Tench is completely destroyed. "He belched and put his other hand against his stomach, pressing, pressing, seeking an obscure pain which was nearly always there (215)." This pain is a cause of the heartbreak, the solitude, and the disappointment brought along by his wife's request. It is obvious that he still loves her, and she has clearly moved on. However, he wants to deny that his wife still has such effect on him and that he is so vulnerable, so he dismisses his pain as "just indigestion (215)." He denies that his wife's request has any effect on him by claiming it's indigestion.

.

......The whiskey priest, which we later find out is named Juan, drowns his sorrows in his alcohol bottle. He washes away his worries and problems for some time, while the effects of the acohol are still very much alive. He hates the fact that he is a bad priest, a bad role model, and a weak person; in order to deny it all, he drinks. By drinking he can run away from his conscience, he can deny everything even his mere existence. Drinking is the only thing that allows this state of denial to exist. I think this ending clearly reflects a very important message in the book. We humans always find insincere ways to deny our cruel realities. We are cowards who constantly look for ways to escape and run away from the things that haunt us. This is a very strong message the book is trying to convey: we need to open our eyes, live life with its realities, and learn to love ourselves because no one is perfect.

.

.

Some questions that were left unanswered:
1) What actually happened to Coral Fellows?

2) Did they really shoot Juan or was he the one that arrived at the little boy's house?

3) What brought a sudden change in the little boy's attitude towards priests?

Hypocrit Religion: A Reality

The Power and The Glory

Pg. 182-203

October 23, 2007

6:14 P.M.

Hypocrisy in Religion

Would it Be Fair to Assume that There is a Lot More "hypocrisy" from the "religious" Than We Care to Acknowledge?

By Lynne Paille

.....Imagine for a second, that the "religious" are illustrated as a mustard tree, and the "non-religious" illustrated as one seed on the mustard tree. Now, the sun is between the horizon and the center of the sky, painting an awesome shadow across the plain. The only problem occurring, though, is that the shadow of the one seed is overwhelming the shadow that should be cast by the whole tree. How, I ask, could this be possible? Enough of the parables. The question is quite simple. How can the number of people that live "godless", and/or "like heathen" create such a disturbance, that their actions totally out-weigh the actions of the "godly"? Would it be fair to assume that there is a lot more "hypocrisy" from the "religious" than we care to acknowledge? In other words, those that call themselves "religious" are only "religious" in name, and not in deed? True, "wickedness" might be hyped up by the media to make it appear that "religion" has no face in the worlds' societies, but what about the atrocities done by the "religious" in the name of "religion"? Are these to be over-looked and ignored now, because of the negativity so eagerly focused on by our media juggernauts?

/
.....Religion. A word introduced sometime during the 13th century into the English language. The origin of the word derives from Greek. Threneo means "to lament, or mourn". Threskeia means "a ceremonial observance". Threskos means "pious". Sebomai means "devotion through adoration". All the words before you mean "religion", or "religious". It is estimated that Christianity has a following of about 2.1 billion people world-wide. Islam, 1.3 billion. Hinduism, 900 million. Chinese traditional religions, 394 million. Buddhism, 376 million. African Traditional and Diasporic, 100 million. Sikhism, 23 million. Juche, 19 million. Spiritism, 15 million. Judaism, 14 million. The list goes on. Let us take into consideration that even the Atheist, though having no "faith" in any "god" or "religion", still lives somewhat by a conscientiousness, giving them a pretty good idea as to what is right, and what is wrong. Let us also not ignore the 25 million or more of those not listed, earlier categorized as the "list" the "goes on". '

,
.....Christianity is the only religion I can honestly say I know something about, whereas the other religions I have only read so much as to gain very little knowledge about (enough for minor conversations), and cannot make a fair analysis when discerning their "righteousness", or lack of "righteousness" thereof. Therefore, I ask that we humble ourselves when considering that my thoughts are not to "trash" Christianity, but rather, to bring all to an understanding with the hopes of a better spiritual growth for ourselves individually, and as a whole. My examples are as follows. Although Christianity teaches that the Son of God died for the sins of the world (I'm assuming the whole world), it seems that Christians spend a lot of time concerned with the lives of homosexuals. I'm a truck driver, and I've seen more billboards about the sins of homosexuality than any other sin, only equaled by that of abortion. After careful examination of the Bible, one must agree that homosexuality is considered a sin, under the categories of "fornication" and "lust". More can be said, obviously, but I think these spell it out to the point. As true as this may be, aren't there more "liars" in the world than homosexuals? Where are all the billboards practically condemning "liars"? From what I've read, the wages of sin is death, and doesn't give us a list as to what sins are seen as more or less worthy of death than the other. Do homosexuals make more of a negative impact on the societies of the world than liars? Are we to believe that liars are more trustworthy than homosexuals? What about people who might be angry with their neighbor without a cause, or better known as people with anger-management issues? Is it better to be in an elevator by yourself with a homosexual, or with a person who might go off the deep-end at any given moment? Is it safer to have a thief watch your valuables, or a homosexual? Aren't there more thieves in the world than homosexuals? Doesn't theft around the world make a more noticeable tear in the fabric of our cultures than the crime of homosexuality? Before I forget, let me speak briefly, if I may, on the issue of abortion while it's still lingering in my thoughts. First of all, it is this "Christian" nation that is allowing abortions to take place. It's no wonder our youth have no respect for "consequence" when they're always given a "way out". Abortion, I conclude, is murder according to the Bible, with only conception from rape as an exception, depending on the individual. The doctors practicing these procedures we must, then, consider murderers. Does God have levels of murder that we're to recognize? Some, like that of doctors to be admired, while others, like that of Jeffrey Dahmer to be scorned? Or, are all murderers in need of repentance? When is enough really enough? Now...let me, I pray, continue with my hopefully non-offensive barrage against the possibility of "hypocrisy" in religion, focusing mainly on the Christian religion. I believe I've read in more than a few places in the Bible that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. Paul taught to those that wondered at the decline of the Jewish religion, and increase of the newly-formed Christian religion, that although it might be misconstrued, the Jew was not totally cast away from God, but that rather, the Jew must believe in Jesus as the Messiah in order to be accepted by God. And yet, there are groups, such as the "Ku-Klux Klan" that literally hate people of a "brown skin" persuasion, Jews, and anyone else not Caucasian, and yet consider themselves "Christian", and claim to teach the doctrines of Christ. It's also well known, without even mentioning them, the crimes done by such "religious" groups.

.
......It must be told, that to be "Christian" is to imply one is "Christ-like". With what is being witnessed around the planet by "Christian" groups, we must conclude then that Jesus is a liar, and a thief, and a fornicator, and a murderer, and pretty much every other "sin" we read in the Bible. If not, then we must conclude that Jesus is still perfect, while the rest of us are "hypocrites".

TAKEN FROM:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/pop_print.shtml? content_type=article&content_type_id=143644

.... I think this article exposes a cruel reality. Religion is a search for perfection, however, nothing and no one is perfect. Throughout history, religion has placed itself on a pedestal and people have fallen for the pedestal it is on. Religion has also imposed moral rules that people have to follow in order to be morally correct in the eyes of God. I believe in God, don't get me wrong; however, I think religion exploits one's emotions and the believe in God. Just today, I went to a mass for my friend's father who passed away. I was in awe as the priest exploited the amazing person her father had been to advertise for Catholicism. It was shocking and not so much consoling. Religion always seems to appear when people are more vulnerable or when they need someone to tell them it's ok. I find it very inmoral for religion to advertise itself at the expense of other people's suffering. That's absurd! Religion exploits people when they are at their lowest point with the promise of God and salvation.