HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Use of quotes around "evo
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:40:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 

In article <5cB802hD23of01#JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
(Chris Lee) writes:
-> In article <5740.170.uupcb@ssr.com> jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patok
-> llio) writes:
->
-> >BTW, I suggest that everybody stop putting quotes around evolutionist.
-> >Granted, it's a slightly unfair label, but so is creationist.  And it's
-> >simpler to use that "person who believes in the theory of evolution".
-> 
-> NONONONONONO!
-> 
-> "Evolutionist" is a word that was hijacked by the fundamental Christian
-> sects that believe the Genesis creation legends actually happenned. Anyone
-> else who uses it implicitly accepts the creationist meaning of the word,
-> including all their assumed attributes.
-> 
-> '"Evolutionist" = "person who believes in the theory of evolution"'
-> is an example: belief implies acceptance without taking account the
-> overwhelming evidence. To use it implicitly denies the evidence.

Then how the hell are we supposed to say it???  "Person who accepts the
fact and theory of evolution because of the mountains of evidence and
observations that exist to back up the two"?

Also:
"Creationist" is a word hijacked by the pro-evolution scientists on
Usenet who think the theory of evolution is correct.  Anyone else who
uses it implicitly accepts the evolutionist meaning of the word, including
all their assumed attributes.  

Looks familiar doesn't it...  :)

I understand why "evolutionist" can be construed as an unfair word, but
since there are many stripes of "creationists" too and that word is
used continually without quotes, I'll stick with evolutionist for
simplicity's sake, thank you.

--
Jani Patokallio                  |  "Ignorance is the soil in which belief
acc1bbs!jani.patokallio@ssr.com  |   in miracles grows."  -Anon.

---
 . AME 1.07 .
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Well, Holden?
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:50:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRAO

In article <74@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.162548.5783@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>*Subject: Re: Direct question for Holden
>*
>*In article <1992Sep30.161451.9854@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
>*}
>*}You claim to have a unique and totally accurate understanding of various
>*}astronomical, physical, biological, and chemical T/S "events" that differ
>*}from the accepted norm by a substantial degree.  Could you please specify
>*}how you acquired this raw data and your qualifications for evaluating the
>*}material?
>*
>*How many more weeks are needed for your response?
>
>*James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
>*The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
>*They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
>
>
>I feel myself under no obligation TO respond to liars.

WELL THEN WOULD YOU FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO RESPOND TO PEOPLE WOULD
LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@something.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Onar is probably right (was Re: Clarification)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:37:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.140948.29880@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

>Andy, If you read my reply, I moderated my assumption that species simply HAVE
>to stay within its own 'kind', as you put it, unless an increase in complexity
>occurs.

Ahh, but this statement still carries the implicit assumption that
biological complexity cannot increase without an increase in genome
size, an assumption for which there is no support because you cannot
define the dynamic range.

>     As far as "genetic unstability" is concerned: This is not some "magic" 
>expression which states that a duplication renders havoc in the genes. (I have
>never stated this) It simply means that after a genetic change which 
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>leads to a sufficiently large morphological change the specie is no longer 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>adapted to its environment.

This is all well and good.  You still have to have empirical support for
your assumption that gene addition is more likely to lead to such a
genetic change than changes without changing the number of genes.

[deletions of more arguments which depend on the above assumption]
 
>    Also genetic unstability does not have to come from changes in the genome.
>The original area where genetic unstability occurs is when the environment, in
>which a specie lives, changes and thereof the adaption of the specie. In fact,
>the analogy to genetic instability is how adapted a specie is to its environment. 

If I may transform this argument from modified-chaotic to standard biological
terms:  changes in selection on an organism may arise from changes in the
genome of the organism or from changes in the environment.  This is nothing
new, except your terminology.

>   I haven't seen any comments yet on 'Further Clarification'. Does this mean
>that you have accepted my explanation?

No.

>Onar.

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Well, Holden?
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:13:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Oct13.162548.5783@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
*Subject: Re: Direct question for Holden
*
*In article <1992Sep30.161451.9854@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
*}
*}You claim to have a unique and totally accurate understanding of various
*}astronomical, physical, biological, and chemical T/S "events" that differ
*}from the accepted norm by a substantial degree.  Could you please specify
*}how you acquired this raw data and your qualifications for evaluating the
*}material?
*
*How many more weeks are needed for your response?

*James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
*The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
*They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.


I feel myself under no obligation TO respond to liars.

-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: evolution through time
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:16:25 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)

In article <1992Oct8.145316.3340@hsr.no>, onar@hsr (Onar Aam) writes:
>Chaos is a new science (its roots goes way back into the last
>century, though), and before this theory is integrated into biology
>(which yet it is not) we will only have a limited understanding of life.

Take heart that a number of varied biological fields are successfully
using chaos, eg, population ecology and brain/heart physiology.  A
recent issue of SCIENCE (or NATURE) had an article on _controlling
chaos_, itself a very new subtopic, with experimental applications
to treating cardiac arrhythmias.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:03:48 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <YM3-MW-@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.130253.202956@uctvax.uct.ac.za> watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
> 
> [extensive deletions]
> 
>>The idea behind the JEPD theory is that since the OT is factually unreliable (a
>>positon which has been over-turned since the 1800's) the 'history' of the OT is
>>Myth (a technical term for historical-fiction, i.e. there is a kernel of
> [stuff deleted]
>>Gary
>  May I point out (this being talk.origins and all) that, at least insofar
> at the first few chapters of Genesis are concerned, the archaeological
> evidence does *not* support the Bible's version of history. (At least,
> if you insist on a literal interpretation.)
>  Its Middle-East and Near-East chronology may well be substantially (or
> even completely) correct, as far as archaeological evidence is concerned,
> but not beyond a couple thousand years B.C.
>  Oh, well.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Ray Ingles          

Please tell me WHAT ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence might be derived from Genesis:1-3?
Paleontological and geological view points CAN be debated (what t.o is all
about),but Gen:1-3 lays down NOTHING that ARCHAEOLOGY can get a grip to. This
was the purpose of my post, a reply to rejecting the Genesis account because
of Wellhausen's JEPD theory, a theory which became widely accepted because of
archaeological support, which was later overruled. There is a double logic
inconsistancy here. Firstly the basis for general acceptance of JEPD was later
overturned. Secondly, the early chapters CANNOT EVER BE VERIFIED BY
ARCHAEOLOGY since there is nothing in them relating to the subject, no detailed
description of cultural accruments, city sites etc.

In other words, raising the JEPD theory in the discussion of origins is
invalid.
Gary
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Plant Death before the Fall (Gall Bladders Anyone?)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:45:12 GMT

In article <Bw3090.GuH@scd.hp.com>, dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller)
writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.112302@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>|> Just a small point, but cats do not instinctively eat meat.  If you raised
a
>|>housecat you would notice that, while it took great delight in killing small
>|>animals, it never eats them.  A cat has to be brough up in the wild to make
the
>|>connection between dead animals and food.  A housecat has no idea what to do
>|>with the dead animal once it is dead.
> 
> This is one of the more popular urban myths, and it probably continues
> to remain viable because there is a grain of truth to it.
[kittens that kill animals and eat them]
> Note that we adopted both of these kittens at 3 weeks age, far too young to
> have learned any hunting skills, let alone being taught them by their mother.
> Further, I doubt they were taught these skills by another neighborhood cat,
> as there aren't any that have shown a particular interest in our kittens,
> who don't venture more than about 10 feet from our property anyway.

  Note that I said nothing about hunting skills.  Note in fact that I did remark
hunting skills are instinctual.  The point I was making is that the "dead
animal"="food" connection is not instinctually made.  Now, granted 3 weeks does
seem rather young to learn even this simple detail, it is not unreasonable to
assume that the mother ate a dead animal (assuming the mother was wild) in front
of them at least once, and even if not, it wouldn't be suprising if this fact
was discovered accidentally (it is hard to maul small animals with your mouth
and not notice they taste like cat food).

  I was quoting a number of PBS specials (yep, not just one said this, but a
bunch).  PBS has made a number of serious screw ups in the past ("Baby Ruth"
named after the presidents daughter comes to mind.  Someone should have checked
the dates before making up a story like that) so I apologize if I am in error.
However, it does match my experiences with house cats.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:03:07 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

Re: Ted's claims about large species

>My claim is consistant.  Not ALL creatures would re-evolve;  some would find
>their niches at smaller sizes.  But at least one would.  The advantages are
>huge.  Greater size and strength mean:
>
>1.  Better chances in competition for mating rights within species.
>2.  Greater abilities to deal with predators/prey from other species.
>3.  Fewer slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in life generally.
>
Allow me to append a few more:

4. Larger food volume required.
5. Greater difficulty avoiding/hiding from predators.
6. Problems with heat loss in warm climates.
7. Worse chances for mating in some situations.

4-6 ought to be self-explanatory.  Point 7: what I mean here is that 
there are more ways to get matings than by being the biggest and
strongest (any milkman can tell you this).  Jack salmon, for example,
come back from the sea a year early, not very big.  They are slender
and not hook-jawed, so they don't trigger a defensive response in
the mating males.  Thus they can slip into the nest with the mating 
pair and squirt their own milt, fertilizing some of the eggs.
You've all probably seen mammalian examples on PBS when two big 
tough elk are fighting it out, and younger ones sneak in and mate
with the females.  If these males were big and tough, they might
miss out on chances like that.  I'm sure I could come up with more 
examples if pressed, but you should get the idea- bigger isn't 
always better, though you're right, in many cases it is.  It depends
on the situation (environment).

>The fact that NO creature has ever revolved into such sizes in all this
>huge expanse of time which supposedly has passed since sauropods lived tells
>us something.  It can't happen.

What about the Eohippus ... Equus line, Ted?  Don't believe in anything
that contradicts you?  
>
>And you'll be able to tell your grandchildren you heard it from the source:
>yours truly.
>-- 
>Ted Holden
>HTE

I hope no one remembers creationism when I have grandchildren.

Paul Keck  I'm not a creationist, but I play one on TV.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: lophophore relationships
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:10:58 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <97918@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|
|Yep, they also give a cladogram that shows the lophophores outside of
|the echinoderms; it's based on the work of Jeffries. I included the
|above one because it seem like they used more characters to
|construct it, although, as I said before, some of the characters
|seem sort of flaky. Stan (in another post) said that early
|development differs in lophophores and Brusca and Brusca say that
|the mouth develops from the blastopore (as in protostomes) but
|they have radial, indeterminate cleavage and coelom formation is
|enterocoelous (all three deuterostome conditions), so mouth
|formation by itself would support lophophores as an outgroup.
|(The other three would not be informative at this level.)

Indeed, it is this combination of characters from both groups that
leads me to call lophophorates intermediate.

Actually, one of my references (I cannot find it right now) discussed
this at length.  It started by stating (as did Brusca nad Brusca) that
the lophophorates are usually considered to have a protostome type
development of the blastopore, aznd then goes on to show some study
results that give a rather different picture.

What they show is that, in some lophophorates at least, the blastopore
*splits* and forms both the mouth and the anus.  This is neither the
protostome nor the deuterostome condition.  The book also makes a case
for several others being derived from this condition.

|This question (indeed invert phylogeny in general) seems to be
|crying out for a good "find 'em and grind 'em" DNA sequence study.
|Why do detailed morphological studies which may be ambiguous when
|you can just throw the critters in a blender? 8-)
|
Yep, I have long come to that conclusion.  There have been a few preliminary
studies of this type.  One seemed to showed that the diploblastic phyla
(Porifera, Coelentrata, Ctenophora) split off from the others a *long*
time ago, and represent a almost totally seperate branch of the animal
kingdom.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: Re: t.o., the home game
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:45:47 GMT

In article <97924@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>Below is my proposal for making debating on t.o. a competitive
>event. Posters can score points depending on what they induce
>the creationist (C'ist) they are debating to do or say in the 
>t.o. forum. Email responses do not count. Using the chart below
>each person can easily keep track of his/her own score and t.o.
>members could from time to time compare their scores for a given
>period of time or "race" to reach a certain score. The possibilities
>are almost limitless. So, submitted for your approval, are my rules
>for "The talk.origins game". Enjoy!
>
>
>SCORING POINTS
>--------------
>
>influencing your writing?)

[various scoring points deleted]

>
>+250 for convincing a C'ist of the fact of common descent and
>modification with descent (This may seem like a lot of points,
>but I don't think I've ever seen this happen so I made it worth
>alot.)

Why does it seem like a lot of points?  *I* was a creationist,
and now I'm convinced.  If you want to divide up the 250 points
between yourselves, I would split it amongst Chris Colby, Jim
Lippard, Kent Sandvik, Sue Bishop, and Seth Bradley.

>
>
>Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
>"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
>resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
> 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
>

Anyways, I'm convinced enough to tire of debating things with
creationists.  I've been studying this for the last 4 months and
I've convinced myself.  That's all that is important to me.  I
don't feel like I should try to convince creationists anymore. 
It's a waste of my time.  Let them believe what they want to
believe; unless they start lobbying to get it into the schools;
then I'll fight for what I think is right.  I'm also through with
debating with the Jehovah's Witnesses in general, and all other
religions, having decided that religion is a waste of my time,
and that I have far more important things to do in my life. 
Science has always satisfied me more than religion; not that
science has all the answers- I think I need some philosophy too. 
But I can get much better philosophy from Bertrand Russell than I
can from the Bible.  Anyways, I just wanted to thank everyone
here, especially the above-named, for helping me to see the
facts, and for your sending me the appropriate FAQ's on the
subjects.  I'm getting tired of trying to keep up with Antti, Ted
Holden, Bales, etc, etc, and all of their bullshit.  Maybe I'll
set up a KILL file for this group and only read stuff from Colby
and Lippard...

P.S. I'm going to see Richard Dawkins tonight at the Harvey hotel
in Dallas!  I'm so excited!  I can't wait to hear him... talk
about a REAL person.  Maybe I'll tell you all what it was like. 
Bye!

-- 
corey@sdf.lonestar.org  214-296-0458   Corey Carroll
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:44:25 GMT

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.161412.15246@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com >(Dave Weaver) writes:
>|> BZZZZZZZZ Wrong answer, please check with your local math text.
>|>      3000 has one significant digit.
>
>Er, it has anywhere between one and four significant digits, Eric.
>3000 +/- 500 has one sig fig.  3000 +/- 0.5 has four sig figs.
>
>|>        30 has one significant digit.
>|>        31 has two significant digits.
>|>      31.4 has three significant digits.
>|> Zeros to the right, in the abscence of a decimal point, aren't significant.
>
>Which digits are significant depends on the stated uncertainty of the
>measurement.  Without an uncertainty estimate, the significance of zeros 
>is not decidable.
>
>If your statement was correct, then it would be impossible to express
>the number "3000" to, say, two or three sig figs (without changing 
>notations or bases, that is).

I should have stated this more precisely. You are right in that 3000 can have
from one to four significant digits, but without a stated uncertainty, this
would be the "preferred" notation. (At least, according to my math handbook)
       3000  must assume one significant digit (could be 1 to 4)
       3 X 10**3  explicitly states one significant digit
       30 X 10**2  has two significant digits
       300 X 10**1  has three significant digits
       3000 X 10**0  has four significant digits
Without a stated uncertainty, this works. Sorry about the confusion, but
the force of the original argument still stands.

Dave Weaver
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Bales and antievolutionism
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Numbers' _The Creationists_, pp. 152-153, describes how a Church of
Christ minister and Harding College (Arkansas) faculty member named
James D. Bales (b. 1915) formed the Evolution Unscientific Movement
and a publication titled _The Thinking Christian_.  His organization
became the American branch of the British Evolution Protest Movement
(EPM).  The magazine died after three issues, and Bales then turned
his attention to fighting communism, while continuing to sporadically
distribute EPM literature.

Bob Bales:  Any relation?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins