HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 160' Diplodocus...  429,895 lbs
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:18:55 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <2885@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>In evolution, if something can happen, and there are huge advantages to
>it and few if any countervailing disadvantages, then it will happen.

No Ted, genetic variation (ultimately supplied by mutation) has to
be present for any adaption to be selected for. Variation is not
possible for every imaginable trait. This is very basic evolutionary
biology; had you bothered to learn even the basics of the theory of
evolution you would know that. BTW, are we supposed to be taking you
seriously? Just wondering.

>Ted Holden
>HTE

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"

Xref: sparky talk.origins:10303 sci.skeptic:15306
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Let's just throw evolution out
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:29:17 GMT

This seems to be what Drew Lawson is saying.  But there are a lot
of other things he is not saying:

	- why we should throw out a theory that coherently explains
	  the evidence.
	- what would replace it.
	- how his religious faith is tainting his view of science.
	- how he doesn't understand what evolution or its evidence is.

Before we cast aside evolutionary theory, we're going to need a better
replacement.  That means someone who understands biology is going to
have to show how evolution does not explain the evidence and is
then going to have to provide a theory that does.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The rise of consciousness
Keywords: brain,evolution,consciousness
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:33:33 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)

[Eli-careful with your attributions.  You mixed MS and me up.]

>White noise and chaos caused by the behaviour of nonlinear equations 
>are not equivalent. [little essay omitted] There are precise mathematical
>descriptions of both white noise and chaos.

Yes.  And meanwhile, our knowledge of which is which in the world around
is highly incomplete.  All the mathematics in the world won't help us if
we have the wrong model.

>Analog signal processing is less reliable than digital not because of
>chaos (because both can display it) but because of the introduction of
>white noise.

Unless, of course, the analog system has the right feedback mechanism
for handling noise.  Consider, eg, Froehlich's pumped phonon condensates,
which may very well be in our brains.  Marshall goes so far as to propose
using them as a model for consciousness.

H Froehlich INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUANTUM CHEMISTRY 2,p641 (1968)
H Froehlich INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUANTUM CHEMISTRY 23,p1589 (1983)
I N Marshall NEW IDEAS IN PSYCHOLOGY 7,p73 (1989)
G L Sewell QUANTUM THEORY OF COLLECTIVE PHENOMENA, Section 7.4 (1986)

>>Your enthusiasm, Eli, is advancing faster than your reading.  I'd catch up
>>on chaos theory before arguing about what noise really means.

>Witty put-downs without lack of informational content often infer more
>about the originator's state of mind than the intended subject.

That's right.  I'm as easily bored by people who don't quite know what
they are talking about as I am by people who know nothing about what they
are talking about.  Now you know.

>								 I suspect
>that you are a bit out of your league when it comes to information
>processing as I would readily admit I am when it comes to biology.

I suspect not.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Subject: Bird "knees" are not facing backwards.
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:51:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.154509@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> In article <2882@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> > This wouldn't work for a sauropod or any straight-legged creature or any
> > creature with knees facing forwards for obvious reasons, and it doesn't even
> > work for an ostrich.
>
> 2) If the knee has to be facing backwards, just run the tendon along the
> other side of the leg for forward facing knees.

This is the second time I've seen the "knee facing backwards" argument.
I presume it comes from some creationist publication.  I'll bet we can tell
what Ted's been reading from this.

What these people are mistaking for knees are the homologues of our ankles.
The real "knees" of birds are usally close enough to the body that they are
mostly concealed by plumage.  If you pluck a chicken, it's obvious.

What these people are mistaking for their brains is not so obvious.

Mike Huben


Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a
	   case brimming with such poetical emotion?"
Chancellor: "Distinctly."
	From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan.
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Antti Siivonen's evidence
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:06:23 GMT


Scientist:  Matter exhibits both particle- and wave-like properties.
	    Multi-slit diffraction experiments in conjunction
	    with the photoelectic effect show this to be the case.

Antti:  Lie.

Scientist:  Completely random arrivals at queues result in
	    exponentially distributed interarrival times.
	    This is verified by measurement and simulation.

Antti:  There is 0 evidence for this assertion.

Scientist:  The Earth exhibits an elliptical orbit about the
	    Sun.

Antti:  This is absolutely false.

Scientist:  Red shifts in starlight arriving at the Earth indicate
	    the distance the light traveled and therefore the
	    length of time it traveled.  This is explained by the
	    Doppler effect.

Antti:  Bullshit.

Scientist:  Muons, formed by cosmic ray interactions in the upper
	    atmosphere, are occasionally captured by nuclei in atoms
	    with the appropriate atomic numbers.  This is illustrated in
	    Cerenkov and scintillation detectors by resulting
	    hyperexponential decay distributions.

Antti:  How stupid can you be?

Scientist:  The value for the electronic charge can be measured
	    by ionizing small oil drops and placing them between
	    two plates with an electric potential difference between
	    them.  The fall under gravity and the fall under the
	    electric field+gravity can be used to observe and therefore
	    measure small changes in drop charge.

Antti:  Lie.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Humungosaurs, etc.
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:46:40 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Aug31.225103.13300@cc.uow.edu.au>, plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (David Plumpton) writes:
> In all the postings recently concerning the "felt effect of gravity", and
> whether or not the largest dinosaurs would have been able to stand or walk,
> I haven't seen anybody mention that these big boys were thought to have
> lived in *water*, with just their heads sticking up.  An indication of this
> is that they tend to have their nostrils on the top of their heads.

Nobody takes this notion seriously today.  Sauropods show zero adaptation
for life in water.  They would have needed large flat feet rather than the
kinds of feet which they actually had;  with what they had, they'd have
become hopelessly mired in muddy river bottoms after three steps.  They
could not have used thier necks as snorkels either, as was once thought;
studies show the pressure at the depths needed for this would not have
allowed them to breathe.  Sauropod their teeth show the wear and
tear you get from eating leaves from trees.  You don't get that kind of
wear eating water vegetation.

One other consideration.  Water deep enough to support sauropods would
also support sharks...  you wouldn't rule the world for x millions of years
in such fashion as sauropods are claimed to have done.

Aside from all this, tracks in Texas and elesewhere definitely show sauropods
walking on land, feet under body.  A few track sequences indicate chase
scenes involving small sauropods and carnosaurs.

A carnosaur in his right mind likely wouldn't go near a large sauropod.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antti's word
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:04:39 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Sep4.110648.27448@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
[everything deleted]

Antti seems to have this -tytt{{, -t{tt{{, -tuttaa -format on his brain.
This proves absolutely nothing. All languages have expressions and words
that can't be translated "as is". The fact that Antti seems to think
Finnish is superior to English shows how inept he is. Sorry.

(As to flexibility: the fact that many Finnish words can be translated
only as many words in English makes Finnish stiffer. Another point:
there's no Finnish equivalent to a thesaurus - though I don't know if
any other language besides English has it either.
But HEY! Could we cut this crap here and move on to evolution??)
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:53:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.205004.17772@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:


>Yes, but my point would be that the reason we're able to conclude that
>pyramids were built by humans is that they bear the marks of something
>that be can compare with our current knowledge and conclude that it took
>more than a hurricane to build them. We know that it took intelligent
>creatures using some sort of tooling to construct them. If some one
>came along and said that the pyramids obviously were formed by the
>actions of glaciers we would strongly oppose their position. If someone
>said given billions and billions of years they could have formed even
>if the odds were 1 in 10^100 we would (almost dogmatically) tell them
>they are nuts. So yes we are nondogmatically convinced that life began
>or that a cell formed at some distant time in the past beyond our observation,
>or that the pyramids were built but in your words do we "have the foggiest 
>notion" of how it was done? 

Read this very carefully, and remember it every time you comment on
evolution:

The analogy you try to make above is _wrong_.
>
>If our only present knowledge of complex things being produced (things of
>a functional or mechanistic complexity) requires intelligent intervention
>then when we see other things with these marks we can only conclude that
>they originated in a similar fashion. 

True.  If our only present knowledge, etc., etc., requires intellegent
intervention, etc., etc.  However, Matthew never claimed that our only
present knowledge of complex things being produced requires intelligent
intervention.  In fact, this is _not_ the case.  It is the case for 
pyramids, but not for life.  Why are pyramids not analogous to life
in this case?  Because _pyramids cannot reproduce_.  Once we have
reproduction, we have a mechanism for the production of "complex things"
without intelligent intervention.  It's called natural selection.
>
>So my question then is this: What present mechanisms are there that
>would strongly allow us to conclude that cells were organized by natural
>(non intelligent) processes?
>
It's called natural selection.


-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:16:46 GMT

>  You feel English is a simple language?  Maybe in it's more common written
>usage (especially as an international language) but I assure you that simplicity
>is the very nemisis of coloquial English.  There are so many irregular verbs,
>nouns, and adjectives it is pointless to even attempt classifying them.  (how
>about goose -> geese, so moose -> meese right?  Or Focus -> Foci, Alumnus ->
>Alumni, Syllabus -> Syllabi, Campus -> Campi right? Hint, one of these words is
>wrong, and one is spelled wrong.)

	Yes, I agree with you. But the fact is that those forms are very old
	and they have still remained in English. I take a guess and say that in
	say, medieval English such irregularities were much more common. 

>  What English lacks in the complexity you refer to it more than makes up for in
>complexities elsewhere.  It is not an easy language to learn as a second one: my
>roommate has been studying since grade school (about 18 years) and still
>couldn't write a letter that would fool a native speaker into thinking he was
>American.

	Now, listen, you dude ! You can check that one from my texts, too !

>  Also, if you really believe Finnish hasn't changed in the last 1000 years you
>should really bone up on your historical readings.

	More words and 'th' is in modern Finnish 'd'. It vanished in 1600's.   
	These are the changes. 

>  English is very flexible if you know the rules behind it.  I can verbify
>nouns, make ajectively words, and with pronuciation the movable emphsis leads to
>incredible ease at poetry.

	How do you say: "To make some one to do (something)" in one word ? In 
	Finnish it is "Teetatyttaa". 

>  Can you translate "sharp as a bowling ball" into Finnish while maintaining the
>propper expressiveness?  Does that prove Finnish isn't as expressive as
>English?
	
	Terava kuin keilailupallo. (Dots above a:s in the first word, we have  
	more letters, you know).

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:32:14 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <95291@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.122615.17553@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> 
>>	Evolutionist is a person that believes in macroevolution (only).
> 
> Damn, I guess I don't qualify -- I believe in microevolution as well
> as macroevolution 8-) I also believe it's time for lunch.
> 

Then there's always Norm's statement on beliefs (Norm from Cheers).
        "Everyone should believe in something..... I believe I'll have
	another beer."

	
>>		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
Subject: Re: macroevolution
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 3 Sep 92 06:02:16 EST
 <BtvAFr.D1o.2@cs.cmu.edu> <pockling.715302915@sfu.ca> <1992Sep2.173643.11566@cs.joensuu.fi>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep2.173643.11566@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington) writes:
>>	We leave scientific "facts" and "laws" open to question
>>because that is the nature of science.  Please feel free to question
>>but no one appreciates it if you throw tomatoes.
> 
> 	Sounds OK. It can happen here, but in the real world such theories are
> 	not seen that way. Evolution is seen as a proven fact, which it isn't. 

Evolution is accepted as both a fact and a theory.  Maybe you'd better do a
little more reading.

> 	I'm well aware of the contents of the average books handling evolution
> 	theory. I know most claims. I don't think it's relevant to discuss about
> 	small details, when it makes you forget the complete picture ? Besides, 
> 	those questions have arosen here many times and they have lead to no
> 	conclusions. When you seem to be a professional of some kind then we
> 	could have an interesting discussion, without throwing tomatoes. 
> 	Perhaps you can answer my questions. I try to ask easily. 
> 
> 	I have been wondering, how could Huia-bird have developed, when both 
> 	sexes use their bills together to get nourishment from flowers. 
> 
> 	Then, in the wedge migratory birds (cranes, swans, scoters, geese etc.)
> 	there is an interesting solution: Birds help each other to move to a
> 	wintering site, and in this order the most powerful individuals must
> 	take the heaviest and most dangerous tasks as leaders of the wedge. In
> 	this way usually happens that those birds die more than normal members
> 	in the wedge. That sounds silly, if you think of the natural selection.
> 

Didn't you recently post something about people needing more field experience?
If you have done any studying of migratory fowls or even read much on the topic
then you might have found out that the wedge leader position is rotated through
the wedge.  It's not always the same bird in the lead, they keep changing it
as they tire.
	                     
> 	Some species have taken properties from the individuals of totally 
> 	different groups. Parasitic Jaeger uses the hunting strategy of 
> 	European Sparrowhawk, Sandpipers and wagtails act similarly etc. .
> 

So what?  This is not at all evidence against evolution.

Sue

> 	I tried to find a bit uncommon topics. 
> -- 
> 
> 		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
> 
> 	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The rise of consciousness
Keywords: brain,evolution,consciousness
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <87566@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes...
>Without actually adopting Julian Jaynes' bicameral mind breakdown theory,
>you can get a lot of impressive perspectives from his book.  One view that
>I find quite plausible is that the rise of language is a necessary precursor
>to our human sense of consciousness.  Brain-language coevolution selects for
>more accurate communication and ends up with self-awareness on the side.

For more on this thesis, see chapter 8 ("How Words Do Things With Us")
in Daniel Dennett's _Consciousness Explained_ (1991, Little, Brown).  The
quote from Helen Keller which begins the chapter is quite interesting:

   Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am.
   I lived in a world that was a no-world.  I cannot hope
   to describe adequately that unconscious, yet conscious
   time of nothingness. ... Since I had no power of thought,
   I did not compare one mental state with another.

There's also some more interesting data along these lines to be found in
Oliver Sacks' _Seeing Voices_ (1990, Harper Perennial) about the deaf
community and those who do not learn language.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:24:23 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: white skin: how did it develop


"The United States would not be the freest, richest, etc. country in
the world without its Christian origins."

This and the "Judeao-Christian" themes that were spouted always make
me laugh.

All the Latin American countries, Eastern Europe is Christian. Hasn't
helped them in the least. Judaeo-Christian values have no special
civilizing influence. (Islam had a far more civilized and tolerant
society than did the Christian societies between its origin in
the 7th century and the 16th century.)

The root of America's success is that it carried forward the
Anglo-Saxon-(Norman ?) values that had its first expresssion
in the Magna Carta, and continued in the struggle against
monarchy and for Parliament in Britain. In fact, every value
in the Constitution has a root in the political experience
of Britain and the colonies over the years before the document
was written.

Thus, Mexico, inheritor of a different political tradition, is
just as Christian, but quite different as a nation.
-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The rise of consciousness
Keywords: brain,evolution,consciousness
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:18:31 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)

In article <emc.715368211@uhura>, emc@doe (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>			 If we go down far enough in size, all
>the universe is digital -- quantum states.

Note that quantum =/=> digital.  The most famous quantum states are
discrete, but many (most?) are not.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:22:03 CDT

Warren Vonroeschlaub (kv07@IASTATE.EDU) wrote:
: In article <1992Aug26.184329.13115@hemlock.cray.com>, robd@cherry09 (Robert
: Derrick) writes:
: > The Religious accept science only when forced to by inescapable evidence,
: > and then only when much time has passed.
: 
:   I will try not to take that personally.  (Perhaps "Religious" shoudl be
: rephrased).

That was poorly phrased, by me.  What I meant was the religious
establishment has not been quick to respond to scientific advances
that challange their dogma.  This is understandable, but in the face
of irrefutable evidence, such as that for heliocentrism, they resisted
strongly.  The Church, married to the government of Spain, retarded
nearly all scientific endeavor in that country.  Of a similiar nature,
the dogma of the Soviet Communist party crippled Soviet genetics,
because they allowed only science that supported their ideology.

In this country, science has had extraordinarily free rein, although
at present it is driven very strongly by money and power concerns, and
our scientific achievements show it.  On the other hand, Japan has
had free rein in applying scientific technology unfetterred by dogma
for about 40 years, and will soon, or already have, outstripped us.

Anyway, I meant that any preexisting condition that forces you to
judge acquired knowledge by its relevence or antagony to your dogma
is going to hopelessly mire you and leave you behind in the past.

rob derrick