HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:32:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct9.221500.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>,
kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu wrote:
>    No, in fact it makes it easer, because the Earth's surface
> was smoother then, so the Flood wouldn't have to cover such a 
> depth; then when the Earth contracted its surface assumed a bumpier 
> form and the water went into the lower parts, what are now the 
> oceans.

The hollow Earth would also explain where all the water disappeared.
Down there! I guess we still have all the water under our feet. And 
that also increased the gravity force. 

Hepp, I think I could become a pretty good creation scientist...

Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Microevolution and Macroevolution
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:15:19 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Oct6.181522.17483@unixg.ubc.ca>, morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
> 
>>"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" were meaningless expressions before
>>creationists put the spotlight on them. To an evolutionist micro- and
>>macroevolution virtually were the same thing because it was generally believed
>>that they were driven by the same causes. But creationists pointed out that you
>>could nuke fruitflies forever and get wird fruitflies, fruitflies with three
>>eyes, or legs instead of eyes etc., but they would still be within the
>>specie of fruitflies. And today we know why. It is because micro- and
>>macroevolution are independent drives. Thus, the two expressions HAS become
>>meaningfull in evolutionary terms. Ironically, perhaps, because of the
>>creationists.
> 
> When I first ran across the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution"
> in a creationist diatribe, I scuttled over to my nearest evolutionary
> reference (Invertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, 2ed, can't remember
> the author/editor) and found the following definitions (paraphrased):
> 
> Microevolution:  evolution driven by forces of selection acting on
> 	individuals of a species.
> Macroevolution:  evolution driven by forces of selection acting on
> 	entire species or groups of species (sometimes referred to as
> 	"species selection", if I remember correctly).
> 
> The text suggested that microevolution was the primary cause of
> speciation and adaptive evolution, and that macroevolution had a much
> lesser effect on these phenomena.
> 
> Armed with these definitions, I went back to my creationist literature
> to read numerous quotes from "eminent" biologists who claimed that
> while microevolution was undeniable, macroevolution was questionable
> as an explanation for the development of life.  Which turns out to be
> exactly right, except that the creationists had cleverly re-defined the
> terms to refer to the scope of the changes in a given species (resulting
> in a nearly opposite meaning) before supplying the quotations for my
> consideration.
> 
> So what is the current state of affairs?  Are evolutionary scientists
> now using the creationist definition of the terms, or do the above
> definitions still hold sway?
> 
> -- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)

This was EXACTLY my point to Onar's original posting. He is of the opinion that
EVEN evolutionary scientists  are USING CREATIONIST DEFINITION OF TERMS, a
position with which I must strongly disagree. The terms were originally coined
by EVOLUTIONISTS, not by creationists. The expresions have meaning in
evolutionary terms because of EVOLUTIONISTS, NOT BECAUSE OF CREATIONISTS.  
Onar's thesis is not justifiable.
Gary

a position
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What makes a creationist?
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:54:11 GMT
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Bruce Salem (salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

: 	Now, as for the USNET and engineers being represented as
: Creationists. It is quite true as you suggest that engineers are
: over sampled in this forum, but so are a disperportinate number
: of people who argue for creationism both Christian and engineers,
: in this group. I don't know of any Creationists who have posted
: here who are biologists. One is a physicist, and one recently who is a
: geochemist whose professional work does not touch on the issues 
: of this group. I know of other cases of people whose background is in
: the earth sciences who have Creationist beliefs, but these again
: do not relate to their work.

	Just a couple of points to note.  Number one, there is a big
difference between being a Christian and being a "creationist".  I would
assert that there is a wide spectrum of "Creationist beliefs", with one
end being God was responsible for the Big Bang and then let it run, and the
other end being six-day plus the worldwide Flood ICR twaddle.  Does everyone
who maintains a faith in God as an agent in the Universe fall under the
heading of "creationist", or is your definition narrower?  This is important,
because I don't consider myself a "creationist" in the way that the term
is often used derisively on t.o.
	Number two, are work and experience distinguished in "touching
on" the issues of this group?  I can describe a wide number of different
pteropod species in great detail (the family _Cavolinia_ comes to mind) --
which occur in different regions of the ocean.  (Thesis ref. available.) 
Speciation implies evolution, doesn't it?  Again, unless one is an ICR robot.
	Number three, are astronomers included in the mix?  Owen Gingerich
of Harvard was a panelist at the Washington Cathedral Conference on Origins.
He's a Christian and an astronomer.  Put him down as a data point (believes
in God being responsible for the Big Bang, if creationist spectral data is
required.)
	Fourth, and forgive me Stan Friesen if I'm wrong, although
Stan's not a professional biologist (is this right?), Stan is both a Christian
and a pretty good authority on biology (please verify, Stan, though I'll
vouch for your authority on biology).

	That is all.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: a farewell to Antti
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:41:46 GMT

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>I would fail you -- you are an idiot. I don't require my
>students to believe in evolution, but I sure as hell expect
>them to be able to regurgitate the definition. Don't expect any
>further responses to any of your posts from me, you have now
>proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you will avoid, at all
>costs, any honest attempt to consider evolution on it's own merits.

	Ha ! I thought you would give that answer to excuse your 
	miserable non-existing and forged proofs ! Sorry, no bonus !
>prove it on demand. See ya, Antti -- enjoy your pinheaded, chimp-
>like existence.

	At least I'm not related to chimpanzees. 

	Adios, stupido ! (Indiana Jones)

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Plant Death before the Fall (Gall Bladders Anyone?)
Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:14:22 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1243@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <Bvw345.41E@well.sf.ca.us> keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:
>|Also, aren't there some species whose young are born inside
>|the body of one of the parents, and who eat their way out
>|or something like that, implying that they too, may have
>|had to go through a bit of evolution after the Fall to get
>|to such a state.
>
>Yep, there are several such.  Also species of *parasite* that are specialized
>to take over a host's body as they grow from egg to pupa.  [This one is
>*really* gross - even to a trained biologist].

I wouldn't need to answer this, except that I like to pick nits with Stanley
(whose information is VERY good.)

There are some mites in the family Pyemotidae which not only eat their
way out of their mother, but mate with their bother inside.  Some gall-forming
fungus gnats (family Mycetophilidae) have a 10 day life cycle of eating their
way out of their larviform mother.  Doubtless I'll remember some other
examples after finishing this posting.  :-)

Parasites that take over a host's body (and kill it) are more properly
called parasitoids (at least among entomologists.)  This is not gross to
properly trained biologists: those who work with live organisms rather
than fossils.  :-)

(Personally, I used to be grossed out by mere dissections.  The currently
acknowledged extreme in grossness by entomologists is forensic entomology.
I believe that the next Cambridge Entomology Society meeting has that for
the topic.)

Mike Huben

Former acarologist, specialist in cockroach parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Evaniidae)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kai@cyklop.nada.kth.se (Kai-Mikael J-Aro)
Subject: Creationist childrens' book
Originator: kai@cyklop.nada.kth.se
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Distribution: talk
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:20:54 GMT

The other day I saw a book in the department store that caught my eye.
"Wonderful Earth" (translated as "Hrlig r Jorden") by Nick
Butterworth and Mick Inkpen [the illustrator, I presume], copyrighted
by Hunt & Thorpe.  It was a very well-done, illustrated childrens'
book, ostensibly about environmental issues.  Turns out that 90% of
the book was about how marvellously God created the Universe and Earth
and all the animals on it etc. and then a couple of pages about how
mankind had polluted God's creation.

I must say I was severely surprised to find something like that in a
reputable Swedish department store (hlns) and that someone (Dagen,
Christian publishers, I gather) had bothered to translate and
redistribute it.  I wonder if they sell much of it as well?  Do we
have to go into creation/evo debates here too, now?

Anybody know what kind the authors and the original publishers are?

[ps The other day I could give a fairly elaborate description of the
use of C14 and isochron dating on the spot to one who wondered.
Thank you all for the background knowledge.]
-- 
Kai-Mikael J-Aro	email:  kai@nada.kth.se	    "Don't win, don't lose."
IPLab	 		voice:  +46 8 790 91 05		-- Yoshigasaki-sensei
NADA, KTH		fax:    +46 8 790 09 30
S-100 44  Stockholm	telex:  812 6154 7052 SICS
SWEDEN			teletex:2401-812 6154 7052=SICS
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: debry@iris1.sb.fsu.edu (Ron Debry)
Subject: Re: t.o., the home game
Organization: Florida State University -- Structural Biology Program
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:58:34 GMT

In article <Bvv0tx.J19@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
]In article <97924@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
]>
]>-1 if your post originates from a third world country... like
]>Canada (he says, hoping to cheese of Larry and get a nasty
]>email response 8-)
]
]	*sigh* Biologists should stick to biology and stay  away from
]areas they aren't qualified to comment on.  ...etc.
]
]	Mesoamericans have different definitions, I am told.
]
]								James Nicoll


*sigh*  Canadians should stick to curling and stay away from humor, eh?  :)


Ron DeBry
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: A Serious Request
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:10:19 GMT


I know a Christian who does not believe in the theory of evolution.
But he says that he is willing to study the subject seriously to
see what the evidence says.

What books ought I to suggest to him.  Textbooks would be fine...
He doesn't know much about biology in genreal, but he's a smart
guy!

--Jimbo
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: evolution through time
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:23:15 GMT

>> In any case, substantial change has been made (IMHO) to evolution
>> to make the theory fit the data (which keeps growing in quantity
>> and quality). The rate of change seems, however, to be tailing 

This is what people said about physics in the late 19. century, too - before
Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, Schroedinger etc. came along!

>> off. The biggest changes of late are probably the neutral theory
>> of molecular evolution and directed mutagenesis.>
>
>I'm curious to know if biologists are looking at the evolving
>mathematical theories dealing with chaos and complexity, especially
>in combination with evolutionary forces?
>

Oh, you can bet on it. The problem is that chaos-theory and, more generally,
theory of complexity is still not awknowledged by many biologists. 

There is a huge gap nowadays, I think, between molecular biologists and
evolutionists. They don't communicate very well. Until this happens, progress in
evolution will be restrained.


Onar.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Teemu Makinen
Subject: Re: a clarification from Ted?
Organization: FMI/GEO
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 06:20:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.145359.13564@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
writes:
>
>hint: the magnetic and geological poles are not the same now.
>

Even worse. The geomagnetic pole is not the same as the magnetic pole of the
earth.
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: No predators in Australia? (was Re: Clarification on
         Microevolution and Macroevolution)
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:48:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct16.182240.3662@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no 
     (Onar Aam) writes:

>Normally when species are isolated for long periods of time they tend
>to become LESS competitive than their competitors. Ex.  Look at the
>animals of Austraila. They have no natural enimies in carnivores.

Onar, you once said something to the effect that you don't learn about
the Modern Synthesis from creationist literature.  Could said
literature be your principal source of information?  Despite the
chauvinism of a lot of us placentals, marsupials are not inherently
inferior.  And the dingo, the marsupial wolf and the tasmanian devil
will probably be crushed to hear that you don't know of them.  (Peter,
could you fill in some blanks here?  What other examples am I missing?)

>Release some rabbits from Europe or a frog from America and all hell's breaking
>loose... 

Kind of like the way it broke loose here in the U.S. when tamarisk was
introduced, or house sparrows, or rock doves, or Norway rats, or
horses, or South African clawed frogs or...

Please don't get the idea that I agree with the other things you wrote
just because I didn't explicitly respond to them.

Mickey Rowe    (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Further Clarification
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:55:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct14.174944.15397@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

>In an earlier article I stated that life as a whole is tending towards greater
>complexity. This is a huge topic which is hard to prove or disprove, maybe even
>impossible. But I will give it a shot.

[shot deleted] ...

>This might sound slightly philosophical, but it's only biology.
>Comments are appreciated.

I have one comment.  Please read Stephen Jay Gould's book entitled
_Wonderful Life_.

>Onar.

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Subject: Re: Antti fails to grasp basic evolutionary principle
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:15:27 GMT

This is 'off the subject' but I wonder if you have any idea how
scary it is for people like me to see such anti-science, anti-
evolution stuff being blasted around among people who apparently
all have college degrees or are working on them????

When I grew up, the Scopes trial was still fresh in our minds.
We regarded such views as laughable, held by people with
very narrow religious views and very little information.  To
see all of this STILL being argued about and being promoted 
even more seriously than then, is very worrisome to me.  It 
looks to me like the world is much more anti-science and anti-
intellectual than when I was a young woman in the 50s, and I
certainly didn't think it was very pro-science and pro-intellectual
then....

By the 'we' above, I do not mean the 'intelligensia' -- I came
from a very ordinary family with no one having a college degree.
But we respected learned people.

Ginny
-----------------------  

In <97528@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu writes:

# In article <1992Sep30.142638.11362@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
# 
# >	My point is that it would be easier to consider o:s and x:es to be 
# >	the same species with each other, but that is not the case. Naturally
# >	you would think the evolution has gone like this:
# 
# >	   o o o o <---->o<------------------------->x<----> x  x x x x x 
# 
# >	but there is NO evidence that for instance     
# 
# >	LAR MAR <--->LAR FUS<------------------------>LAR ARG<----->LAR HYP
# 
# Once again, Antti, you show your appalling inability to grasp even
# the basics of evolutionary biology. Your "Naturally you would think
# the evolution has gone like this:" example indicates that you don't
# grasp one of the fundamental tenets of evolution -- modern species
# share common ancestors; they are not linearly derived from one another.
# I would expect that the subspecies all share a common ancestor and
# each subspecies has evolved some morphological differences but not
# reproductive isolation.
# 
# >		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
# 
# 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"
# 

===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
===============================================================================
From: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:44:53 GMT
	<1992Oct8.162854.1281@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 8 Oct 92, amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) said:

> Right, but wrong.  Whilest the gravity at a distance n away from the center
> of either sphere will be the same, because the big Earth has a larger
> radius the *surface* gravity of the expanded Earth will be less than the
> *surface* gravity of the normal Earth.

> All we need is an Earth with twice the radius and the surface gravity
> is only 25% of what it is now.  Are you listening Ted?

Doesn't this idea make the Flood much more difficult?  After all, now
we've got 4 times the surface area to cover.  If we can work out some
Flood explanation (after all, we don't need to work out every little
detail to make it a better theory than the normal Uniformitarian
bulls**t)...

--
Bruce Stephens
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Large animals and stuff
Date: 16 Oct 92 07:34:22 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <72@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>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.

The amusing thing is that people swallow Ted's claims and valiantly battle
his justifications.  The above claim is simply false -- there have been
a number of animals since the dinosaur extinction that were in the
sauropod weight and size class.  Baluchatherium definitely was.  What
is true that there haven't been any animals since the dinosaurs that
were as big as the really heavy weight sauropods.

All of which raises a couple of interesting questions -- like why aren't
there any humongotheriums around today, and why were the sauropods the 
kings in the weight class.

As to the first question, the real answer probably is the end of the
latest ice age.  Despite Ted's essays into paleozoology and evolutionary
theory, large animals are inordinately prone to extinction.  A large
animal species needs a wide browsing range, a stable climate, and a
stable ecology.  Man, the hunter, may have played a signifigant role
in eliminating the humongotheria; this is the subject of some interesting
debate.

As to the latter question, there are a couple of possibilities that occur
to me.  One is that the sauropods did indeed drop warm-bloodedness.
This would raise the size limit because of the lowered food requirements.
Another possibility is that dinosaur metabolism in some unknown way
favored size relative mammals.

Comments?
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:41:23 EDT
 <1992Oct8.162854.1281@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <1992Oct8.173948.15843@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Oct8.173948.15843@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, klein@frith.egr.msu.edu (Jeffrey Klein) writes:
> 
> (Not to be confused with the Church of Last Wednesdayism.)

   Is this another sect of Last Thursdayism?

Karl

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Holden and the C programming language
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:40:20 GMT

Actually, feel compelled to encourage Ted in his efforts to improve
his programming style. The program which he posted and has had criticised
in this thread is a *vast* improvement to what he had published in
Aeon 2(4), p115.

---------------begin Ted code; indenting per original---------------
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
int i,j,k,l;
long ii,jj,kk;
double a,b,c,aa,bb,cc,dd;
double x,y,z,xx,yy,zz;
main()
{
xx = 550;
while(xx > 1)
{ printf("\n num of args was %d\n", ii);
exit();
}
xx=jj; yy=kk;
zz=pow(xx,.666);
aa=yy/zz;
printf(\n\n ratio = %f\n", aa);
}
---------------end Ted code---------------

The while loop in this program continues to fascinate me.

-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Newsgroups: talk.origins