HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:45:00 GMT

In article <2890@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <KAI.92Aug31094228@kai.nada.kth.se>, kai@kai.nada.kth.se
(Kai-Mikael J-Aro) writes:
> > Do giraffes lie down to sleep?  
> 
> They carry their necks almost straight up;  it's the only way they can deal
> with the weight.  One minor problem:  the blood pressure it takes to get
blood
> to their heads is immense.  It would blow our vascular systems apart.

  Incorrect: they are able to hold their necks straight up because the walls of
the arteries are lined with special helper muscles.  It is a distributed heart
system that allows blood to be pumped up heights without requiring as high a
blood pressure.

  I have pointed this out several times, but you have chosen to ignore it each
time.  Oh, that's right, you're Ted Holden: it's your job.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:21:27 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber) writes:

>In article <1992Sep7.101721.25905@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>>>Many of us on t.o have read this book.  We are not impressed.
>>
>>	Please, explain !

>	I get it. Antti just has to name the title of a book and it's our
>responsibility to spend time invalidating the whole thing.
>	Just pick one specific argument that you think is impressive from
>that book and we'll start from there.

	It's a brief, comprehensive introduction to the evolutionary 
	questions in an easy-to-read-form. As such it doesn't go too far to
	individual cases, and thus successfully maintains the view to evolution
	in entirety. 

	How about that ?
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Xref: sparky talk.origins:11108 alt.atheism:16903 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3510 sci.skeptic:16185
From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism,alt.fan.dan-quayle,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:05:00 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Sep9.150914@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>   I've read B.C. for YEARS and it seems that Mr. Hart has only recently
>transformed from a soft core, tollerant, evangelical christian to a brainwashed
>zombie purveyor of conservative hate propaganda.  This sort of worries me; lots
>of people read the comics before (or instead of) the front page.  This
>progression represents another jack-boot clomp in the progress of
>irrationalistic think-o-phobia.  Ackthpppttt!
>

If they want a semi-balanced view, newspapers should rerun old "Bloom County"
strips (like they've been rerunning old "Doonesbury"'s lately).  At least
the humor will be subtler and funnier than "B.C."

>Dan (from inside my asbestos tent, where I am watching M*A*S*H reruns)
>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: questions for super-biologist Antti
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:11:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <95642@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Sep9.153545.12655@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> >	PS. Your high-brow scientific jargon doesn't impress me.
> 
> I hate to break this to you, but none of that was "high-brow
> scientific jargon"; all the words I used are common biological
> terms. I'm not going to apologise to a pinhead like yourself
> because I'm better educated than you are and have a more expansive
> vocabulary.

You know, for a layman, someone who does not have an background
in biology, it would sound like scientific jargon. Antti, if
you don't understand, then you don't understand biology.

I'm not trained in biology, but I do know the computer engineering
jargon, and it's needed when explaining how computers internally
work. Same with biology, if you don't think jargon is important,
then you have not been involved in any deeper discussions
about biology.

Ugh,
Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:51:37 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>>The author of this article seems to disagree with Antti's claim about
>>their being subspecies.  His study comes to the conclusion that all
>>three are seperate species.
>
>Thank you for providing interesting material (saved my day). But, still
>some scientists disagree with those results.

This from someone who claims to be a scientist. What, I am supposed
to beg and plead with you to reveal who these "some scientists" are?

I get the distinct impression that you have been caught exaggerating.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: questions for super-biologist Antti
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:09:52 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Sep9.153545.12655@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>	I can say that this is the way Marxists pose questions 

Likewise, I can say that your answer typifies creationist evasion.

>	if you use evolutionary
>	questions you get evolutionary answers. How could I give you right 
>	answers if you use wrong therminology ?

I was asking for evolutionary answers, if you understand evolution as
you claim, you should be able to provide them whether you agree with
them or not.

>	 Can I ask you, how you explain
>	Social Darwinism and the zero-probabilities of useful mutations ?

You sure could, and I could tell you the views of Social Darwinists
and creationist arguments that beneficial mutations don't occur.
I could also explain the flaws in both arguments; but notice I have
to understand the arguments first before I can refute them. You do
not have even the slightest grasp of evolution.

>	PS. Your high-brow scientific jargon doesn't impress me.

I hate to break this to you, but none of that was "high-brow
scientific jargon"; all the words I used are common biological
terms. I'm not going to apologise to a pinhead like yourself
because I'm better educated than you are and have a more expansive
vocabulary.

> The words are
>	meant to express the meaning, not to hide, but it seems that you 
>	prefer hiding it. 

Earth to Antti, I asked you specific questions using well defined
terms -- you respond by calling me a Marxist. Who's hiding?

>		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"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:14:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.205115.12884@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, hrbob@ixstar.ih.att.com
(R.E. Wiersbe) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.142406.24207@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James
Meritt) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep2.130157.3954@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
>>}In article <dkristof.715431601@hq> dkristof@Pt.hq.af.mil (Capt Dave Kristof)
writes:
>>}>For you Creationists out there, a simple question:
>>}>
>>}>What is the purpose of mankind?  
>>}
>>}To worship God.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>
> 
> My own current opinion is that He has a very _large_ ego and He needs lots
> of people to stroke it.
> 
> Bob Wiersbe

   Piers Anthony treated this subject at length in his vaguely tollerable
fictional series "Incarnations of Immortality".  IMHO the quality of the series
was monotone decreasing, but remained readable until the end.  R-rated, sort
of.  In the end God was replaced by someone that wasn't a lotus eater.  Yet.

   The "large ego" theory does explain the observations but it seems to fail on
grounds of parsimony :)

   Anyone found and EVIDENCE yet?  Jim? Lionel? Bob? What's your nozzle?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Summary: clearly, language and "race" are not necessarily related
Date: 04 Sep 92 21:57:33 GMT

> From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
> [...] standard theory cannot begin to explain the total unrelatedness
> between Indo-European (Japhetic) and Semetic languages, despite there
> being no real racial differences between the two groups, and the obvious
> implication that the divide between the two groups cannot be more than a
> few thousand years back in time. 

The rather obvious fact that people learn languages but are born with
their genetics is a remarkably good way for the "standard theory" to
"begin to explain" an unrelatedness between genetics and language.  They
would not be *expected* to be related, except by population statistics. 
They can clearly diverge arbitrarily far. 

Under Ted's theory, many of my neighbors and co-workers "should" be
speaking swahili or cantonese or korean or whatnot, on account of those
would be the languages that go with their "race".   (What Ted would make
of the dozens of creole languages worldwide is doubtless entertaining,
if not instructive.)
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Bales
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: net
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:43:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.191315.26354@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
>
>Notice how he, once again, hopped in, made some assertions, then hopped out?
>Consistent.

	Yes, and good riddance, too. Time was when all the volume was
taken up with Bob's 500 line posts and the torrant of replies to him.
He didn't contribute much of quality in all that verbage since his
positions were descernable after a couple of posts and never changed.
Bob, himself, was a good argument against evolution. But then again
maybe he is becomming extinct on this group, or someone has much more
of his time. I guess the cush days when he could devote alot of time
to this stuff is passed. Good, he wasn't really worth our time.

Bruce Salem


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: Two ape men? Who ordered THAT?
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 08:50:52 GMT

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

>> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>> 
>>How strange. I thought evolutionists reckoned that all humans alive
>>today are descended from a pair of ape-men from the distant past.

Oh Lionel. How can you stand it? You were in this group 6 months,
trashing the most fundamental idea in biology before you dropped
your trousers and admitted that you didn't even know what natural
selection was. And now you claim this. What would it take to actually
get you go find out what biologists say, before shooting off your
mouth?

>>Creationists believe all humans today are descended from Adam and
>>Eve. Are the two approaches so different that you can brand one as
>>impossible?

I've got an idea; why not find out what the theory of evolution says.

Then you can decide whether it actually threatens your sacred book. Maybe
you can get on with attacking something else you know nothing about, but
are told is against your faith.

Regards,
	Max G. Webb
-- 
mongo@techbook.COM          ATT: 1-503-227-1284
SNAIL: 1983 nw Flanders #205, Portland OR 97209
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist misrepresentation of Colin Patterson
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:13:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Can anybody tell me if the following quote, which was attributed by
John Mulder to Colin Patterson, is to be found in the works of
creationist Luther Sunderland, and if so, where?

   Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing,
   any one thing that is true?

Is this a question Sunderland asked Patterson, or is this a rhetorical
question Patterson used in a lecture which Sunderland taped?

(Jim Loucks?  You have some stuff by Sunderland, don't you?)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky talk.origins:10910 sci.skeptic:15986
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: rhetorical cow pattys and their orifice of origin
Date: 5 Sep 92 16:30:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1296@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:

>	I would like to take this opportunity to publicly
>apologize to Chris Colby for causing him to step into
>a rhetorical cow patty that I set for Matt Wiener.

No need to apologize. One quick question, though -- you do know
enough about biology to identify the particular piece of cow
anatomy that deposits the patty, right? 8-)

>Bill R.

Follow-ups to t.o. 

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"
From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thank you, Antti, for discussing things.
Keywords: Antti, evolution, creation, holistic, Menem, Norrblad
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:31:41 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Sep9.154152.12886@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Thank you, I would love to. You were honest enough to say it aloud. I
>	have an interesting text about nonreligious objection to evolution,
>	if you want it ask it from me by email. 

Oh please do enlighten with us in the net with its title, and maybe even
a summary.

>-- 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>
>	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Antti's word
Date: 5 Sep 92 09:15:00 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992


 > From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
 > Message-ID: 1992Sep4.110648.27448@cs.joensuu.fi

 >       "Juoksutututtaa" => To make someone to make someone to
 > run. How do you translate with one word ?

Deputize, Arm, Sic, Loose, Press.

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Un-pa-tri-o-tic (adj):   |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| protesting when the      | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| government wants to kill | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| people.                  | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:35:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep14.225530.14088@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark
Isaak) wrote:
> In article <1992Sep2.130157.3954@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> >[The purpose of mankind is] To worship God.
> 
> Why, then, are you a creationist?  Do you believe that God can only
> be found in the Bible, and not in ice cores, DNA sequences, and
> fossilized trilobites?  How are you worshipping God when you refuse
> to take these and other aspects of Him at face value, and decide
> instead that your own interpretation of them must be correct?  How
> are you worshipping God when you have closed yourself to the beauty
> and elegance of plate tectonics, genetic recombination, and population
> dynamics, or do you think that they also are not a part of God?

True, as Galileo so elegantly stated:
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."  --Galileo

Cheers,
Kent
"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: root@lyra.scg.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:39:24 GMT
Reply-To: root@lyra.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Request for transitional fossil info.
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:55:16 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

I'm going to be on vacation next week and I plan on staying home, doing
some reading and hitting the library. What I would like to read more 
about is transitional fossils and why certain fossils are considered
transitional. Also, what is the definition of a transitional fossil?
Is there a difference between transitional and intermediate fossils?

So far, the books that have been recommended haven't really answered 
these questions for me and I'm really trying to find as much detail as
possible in this matter. Please email or post any recommended reading 
you may have on the subject of transitional fossils. The more details
the better.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: an eternity with Lionel -- egad
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:57:28 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Sep2.130157.3954@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>we decided
>that to spend eternity in God's presence (heaven) was an appropriate
>length of time

So in other words, you are going to spend eternity with your god in
heaven. Thus anyone else who goes to heaven will spend an eternity
with you. I have one question -- is it too late to get a confirmed
reservation for hell? I'd hate to get bumped considering the
alternative.

>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

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"

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:31:45 GMT

kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>I don't want to be rude, so I'll wait with the answer until you ask two more
>times.

	Perhaps I'm not interested in asking. 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 160' Diplodocus...  429,895 lbs
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:07:13 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <2894@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|In article <985@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|
|*However, I *was* also trying to make an important point.  You cannot simply
|*apply linear scaling and expect to get reliable results, you have to use
|*what anatomists call allometry, that is differential scaling.
|*As I have been informed by e-mail, this is in fact how the weight estimates
|*of about 55 tons for the Breviparopus(?sp) were arrived at.  
|
|That sounds sort of like the manner in which politicians use economists to
|produce the numbers they're looking for... "if it works, do it!"

Boy!  What abysmal ignorance!

Allometric scaling is *standard* methodolgy in biology.  It is *not*
simply 'whatever works'.  Iyt is a rogorous technique that involves
careful comparison of various specimens (or species).

It is used because it allows the seperation of purely size related effects
from adaptive or random differences.

If it were as bogus as you claim then biologists, who like precision,
would not abide its use as readily as they do.

|I AM a bit surprised that you would thus accuse paleontologists as a
|profession of being bullshit artists and liars.

No, they know the difference between valid and invalid comparisons,
and are careful to apply only the valid ones.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com