HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,sci.bio
Subject: evolution file
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:14:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

The newsgroups I'm posting this to commonly discuss aspects of
evolutionary biology. Often these discussions suffer from a lack
of knowledge of what exactly the theory of evolution is and isn't.
Below is an outline of the contents of the two posts that follow
this one. (P.S., this is the "evolution FAQ", I sometimes mention
in my posts. I have bounced mail to several people requesting this
in the past couple weeks -- if you mailed me and got no reply, I
tried but couldn't get through.)

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY

(first post--microevolution)
Introduction
	What is evolution?
	What isn't evolution?
	What evolution isn't
Genetic variation
	How is genetic variation described?
	How much genetic variation is there?
Evolution within a lineage -- anagenesis
	Mechanisms that decrease genetic variation
		Natural selection
			Sexual selection
		Genetic drift
	Mechanisms that increase genetic variation
		Mutation
			Directed mutagenesis
		Recombination
		Gene flow
	Overview of anagenesis

(second post--macroevolution)
Evolution among lineages -- cladogenesis
	Speciation -- increasing biological diversity
		Modes of speciation
		Observed speciations
	Extinction -- decreasing biological diversity
		"Ordinary" extinctions
		Mass extinctions
	The pattern of macroevolution
	Macroevolution
	Punctuated equilibria
Conclusion

I've set follow-ups to talk.origins.

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: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Summary: ethnicity, not race
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:36:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <87565@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
(Matthew P Wiener) writes:

> Race is not incoherent.  It is not well-defined, it is frequently abused,

We may be talking at cross-purposes here.  Your references mostly note
correlations of ethnic groups (defined culturally) with language (not
surprising!) and (the heart of the matter) with genetic "boundaries."
I expect to explore your references -- at the moment the only one I've
read is Cavalli-Sforza et.al., and they have been *massively* criticized
for poor methodology by linguistic reviewers.  However, that is not
what motivated my remark -- I think the interest and plausibility
of correlating languages and (biological as well as cultural) popu-
lations is high.

The incoherence is in the semantics and use of "race" which in its
modern career is NOT a respector of genetic boundaries -- it tends to
claim ethnic or genetic bases which disappear when tested by anything
like objective standards.  If we stick to ethnic groups and recognize
these generally tend to be endogamic (but with quite fluid boundaries),
we have reason for exploring possible biological subpopulations.  I'm
NOT saying that is incoherent.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
				and you say "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard,
mls@usl.com			a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  And
standard disclaimer		yet, Wisdom is justified by all her children.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:27:13 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: white skin: how did it develop


I suppose Lionel Tun would want to attribute the extraordinary success
in science (and hence the advocacy of evolutionary theory) to the
Christian origins of the US ? (After all, US science is the world leader!)
:-)
arun gupta
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:32:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.015019.25683@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca
(Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
> In <94541@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> >Also, can you back up your repeated assertion that "evolutionists"
> >take this one step further and say "... so therefore there is no
> >god." I haven't seen anybody on t.o. say that. I haven't seen
> >any evolutionary biologists say that. I (a grad student studying
> >evolutionary biology) don't claim that. I've never seen a text
> >in the field make this claim. Where are these phantom hoards of 
> >people arguing in this manner?
> 
> I'm one, and proud of it.  I was raised without religious bias
> and the idea of evolution co-existing with god is an atrocity.

  You and Drew seem to have fallen for the same thing: lack of requirment for
something does not preclude one.  I am not required to wear a watch, there are
clocks all over campus and my home (one in every room!)  Does that mean that my
wearing a watch is an "atrocity"?

  If you can give me a single scientific reason why you believe there is no God
I would be greatly appreciative.  If not, stop claiming there is one.

  What are you trying to do?  Earlier someone (rhetorically) said to a
creationist who claimed that evolution and theism are mutually exclusive that
they were no longer Christian.  Would you be happy if I were to say that you had
convinced me, and I no longer believe in evolution?

> All of the evidence you agree to is mutually exclusive to the 
> concept of god.

  Mutually exclusive?  Try "independent".  Unless of course you can show that
"All of the evidence" denies the existance of God.  (Okay, how is F=ma mutually
exclusive of God?)

[more ravings as above deleted]

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:41:41 GMT

In <LEET.92Aug25122827@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:

>What I'm saying is that the dirt appeared only
>on the feet, and was only found by one of the scanners (I'll get the
>correct story from Heller's book).  This makes Joe Nickell's thesis
>(cloth wrapped around a statue/mannekin/corpse) more likely than one
>that has an artist painting on the shroud/canvas.  But it also means
>that either the faker thought of this detail deliberately for
>authenticity, but got other details "wrong", or else the dirt was
>accidental. 

Imagine this:
Youve just completed your life size wooden model for your shroud forgery.
You lay the cloth over the model to rub the image on.  In order to rub the
back of the model, you have to stand it up.

Do you stand it on its head?  No, you stand it on its feet.
The cloth wrapped around the feet digs into the dirt floor of the 
barn/shed/workshop of the average 1200 B.C. home.

Vern Nelson
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: RNC and evolution
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:54:38 GMT

	I think that the reason Creationism wasn't mentioned
in the platform is that reactionaries get the same result by
being for the school voucher system, they get the values of
the liberal, secular state off their backs by being able to
get the taxpayer to pay for their choice of schools, whether
or not that school teaches Creationism or not, and whether or
not the tax benefit is direct or not. If they can impoverish
the public school system still further the desired effect
is the same.

Bruce Salem
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:40:52 EST
 <1992Aug21.132442@IASTATE.EDU> <1992Aug21.203827.19533@SSD.intel.com> <953@tdat.teradata.COM>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <953@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.203827.19533@SSD.intel.com> jerryg@ssd.intel.com (Jerry Gaiser) writes:
> |In article <1992Aug21.132442@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> |>Horses sleep on their feet, why not seismosaurs?
> |
> |Just a nit. Horses do sleep standing up, but it is not R.E.M. sleep. ...
> |least one period of R.E.M. sleep and they get that by lying completely down.
> |
> |Now back to your regular programming...
> 
> True enough, but I think *birds* do things differently, and I do not know that
> I have ever seen a bird laying down to sleep (sitting on a nest is not for
> sleeping, it is for uncubating eggs).
> 

Birds squat down, tuck a head under a wing and sleep.

Sue

> And, remember, dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than to mammals,
> so the avian type of sleep is more likely to be relevant than mammalian.
> 
> I do think the idea that sauropods never lay down warrants serious
> consideration, Warren had that right.
> -- 
> sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
>   or
> Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ford@hpmcaa (Dan Ford)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:09:54 GMT

Antti Siivonen (asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi) wrote:
> [commentary on Chris Colby's evolution FAQ deleted]
> -- 
> 
> 		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
> 
> 	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !

  If I were you, I would reach for my asbestos suit.  Your comments
are uninformed, naive, and arrogant.  Such behavior is not taken lightly
by this group.
  Is it so hard to get a few facts first before spouting such ignorance?
What did you say?  Oh, you did get the faq's! so you admit it's pure
unadulterated destructive criticism that you offer, no intent to carry on
a rational, polite discussion where all parties benefit?

Dan

McMinnville, OR
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develop?
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:27:42 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA


keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:

>[...]  Evolution is "driven" by survival.  The spcies that survive
>for a long enough period of time to make it statistically likely that
>a fossil of it should be found are most likely the species that are
>very good at surviving in the then current environment.

I only suggest that evolution could have been used by God to produce
life, and that God caused all big changes and that evolution provided
the diversity.  I don't doubt that evolution occurs, but I also
believe that God exists and that he had a hand in providing this
learning environment we affectionately call the universe.

>[...]  Can you provide evidence (other than the fact that we have
>not observed it) that states that evolution could NOT have happened?
>Until we find such evidence and as long as the theory continues to
>fit so remarkably with the evidence that we do have, I think
>evolution will hang around.

Touche!  I cannot prove that evolution could not have happened
no more than you can prove that God does not exist. But in fact, as I
said above, I believe it does occur and thus I have no need to prove
that it can't.

>[...]  See, you are asking for the impossible.  You want a fossile
>of every animal that ever lived in order to show the exact path of
>evolution.  We don't need this.  The data that we have is sparse, but
>it covers a large enough are of time to show general trends.

Excellent point.  The theory certainly does fit the data points (as
all theories do when they are first made, but don't forget: the Earth
was thought to be flat at one time).

>[...] It certainly seems that the conditions on Earth are just
>perfect for life.  We have the correct type of star, and we are just
>the right distance from it.  Is it a coincidence that these condition
>are present?  Of course not.  These conditions are a requirement for
>life, so why are you so surprised to find them on the Earth?

>See, you seem to want some intelligent being to be present in order to
>shift the probabilites to make the idea of life more plausible.  [...]

Touche encore!  Okay, so we don't need an intellent being to shift
probabilities.  So I only suggest that there may have been one.  The
theory of evolution may fit the data points and still may not be
complete.  Evolution is not contradictory with the concept of God.

I enjoyed your story about the con-man.  I had forgotten that story (I
heard a different version about the stock market).  thanks for
reminding me.

-- 
Good-day!

Mark
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: theories and application
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 28 Aug 92  00:24:00

 > From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
 > Message-ID: 8eFV03Rv6aUN00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com

 >>Social Darwinism and other silly mis-applications of Darwin are no more the
 >>fault of evolutionary science than the Spanish Inquisition was the fault of
 >>Jesus Christ.

 > I concur. Can I call on you to speak up the next time
 > Christianity is bashed using similar arguments as we've
 > recently seen in t.o? :-)

Many habitually do so. Not one creationist has ever called people like you to 
task for such things as you have been saying.

 >>   The correctness of evolutionary theory does not depend on it's venal
 >>misapplications any more than Jesus nature as the Son of God depends on the
 >>atrocities committed in his name by misguided followers.

 > I agree.

 >> ...not that it matters much.  To reiterate: the correctness of evolution
is
 >>independent of its misapplication by confused people.

 > This is true of anything, including Christianity.

Good. Now will you aknowledge that evolution does *not* say that different
races are different species, and that further it doesn't promote racism? And
will you acknowledge that evolution has nothing to do with abortion. And will 
you agree to never bring up such false arguments again?

In fact, let's make it comprehensive. I declare that any application of
christianity that produces bad results is a wrong use. Now i want to see you
make the same declaration about evolution.

NOW: can we address the facts?

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Hussein: We made him, we |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| broke him, we'll build   | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| him up again if we want  | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| to, we're the US.        | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          |                                      |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: fritz@triguy.East.Sun.COM (Steve Fritzinger - SE Sun Washington,DC.)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:04:22 GMT
Reply-To: fritz@triguy.East.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: triguy.east.sun.com

In article 17801@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu 
 I thought the Washington Monument was intentionally built to certain specifi-
 cations that would be a numerologist's dream.  Isn't it 555 ft. high amongst
 its other stats?

Uh-Oh, now I'm getting called on something I read quite a while ago.
I don't know if any of the dimensions are intentional.  The essay
was directed more toward the kinds of things the Pyrimidologist
were doing.  They would say, "This hallway is 1,914 inches long,
and World War I started in 1914.  So the builders of the pyrimids
were predicting World War I."

The point was to show that given a large amount of
basically unstructured random data (number of words in a verse,
lengths of halls, number of stones etc), and the ability to
define what is and isn't significant after you've found it,
it is easy to "prove" just about anything using numerology.

Steve Fritzinger   --  steve.fritzinger@East.Sun.COM
The First Rule of Holes:
When you're in one, stop digging.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:22:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.170957.11021@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> 	material ? It was because it didn't support your claim at all. What do
> 	you know about those animals' sex-life ? I.e what makes them two 
> 	separate species ? How can you prove it ?

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had the impression they were plants, not
animals.  As to what the sex life of a plant is . . .

> 	OK. That is what I wanted to know ! But, again, perhaps there were  
> 	three different species. This is happening today, too (Loxia 
> 	pytyopsittacus - L.scotica - L. curvirostra). It's impossible to say
> 	if they are three distinct species or if scotica is pytyopsittacus' or
> 	curvirostra's subspecies. In English we talk about Crossbills. The 
> 	point is, how can you be so sure of species that have been extinct for
> 	a long time when nobody knows any solution for our current examples ?

  Antti, if you look at this carefully you will se it proves exactly the
opposite of what you're trying to prove.  You wan't to find a single species
with different structure, not three different species with a similar structure. 
You ahve actually confirmed Chris' point.

> >Ooh, someone on the net is against evolution; I'm trembling. Where's
> >their theory and the evidence for it?
> 
> 	Better ask them themselves. They are Menem and Norrblad. 

  Hard to ask them when we are givenb partial names.  Can you at least narropw
it down to a country so there are only a few thousand phone books to search
through?

> 	The real biologist has rubber-boots that are never dry. 

  Then my 1 year old cousin is a real biologist.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: How Not to Argue with Creationists
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 1 Sep 1992 11:24 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Of the many people who have requested this, I've been unable to get mail
through to the following:

   Paul Nepermann (pen@cbnewsf.att.com)
   Matthew Hannigan (matt@aodc20.gov.au)
   chris@eso.mc.xerox.com

If any of the above still want a copy, please send me some suggestions
on how I can get mail through to you.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:25:15 GMT

skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>Could you please explain what you read between the lines that made you come
>to that conclusion?

	I read that the proof is actually 0. 

>Many "evolutionists," as you call them, do work out in the field.  Do you
>really think evolution is only limited to fossils and museum pieces of dead
>animals?

	Shouldn't be.              
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: visiting ICR? (check brain at door)
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:15:06 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

ehamrick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric N Hamrick) writes:

>      I have heard one rumor that there is a basket outside the entrance
>   with this handwritten sign attached to it:
> 
>               Please place brain in basket before entering.

And the basket is empty, proving that visitors have followed
the instructions perfectly.

John
From: salem@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM (Bruce Salem[CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 31 Aug 1992 12:32:10 -0700
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: appserv

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>	You ignore the fact that languages have developed to simpler forms 
>	not more complicated as the so-called evolution "theory" claims. 

	This sounds like an unsupported assertion. How does one define
"simple" and "complex" as regards "forms" of life or language? Does
any analysis of such forms support your assertion? This is murky stuff,
nor does what I know about evolution support the conclusion. Is a
form that is more "specialized" necessarily more complex? Does evolutionary
change always involve increased complexity? I would say not always. This
hinges on definition and elaboration of terms that can be realted to
emperical information. You have bothered to discuss neither termininology
nor information.

	It would seem possible to me for an evolving language or life-form
to lose information, or skip over stages in development. Ancestral
structure, while it provides a model in development, can become very
stylized, being but a template for later structure and function, but some
information has been lost.

	The notion that there is any information about ancestral structure
in the developmental and mature morphology of lifeforms or of language
is strong evidence of a temporal precident that has been worked through
many times, but some information has been lost. The full history is not
replayed in the development, only some of it.

	Does the size of genomes from various taxa show a steady increase
of information through time? Does the information content of the genome
for related taxa vary? Does phylogeny relate to the size of the information
content of genomes in any general way? Do we know enough about the genomes of
various taxa to give an answer?


Bruce Salem
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bill Riggs _astounding_ ignorance of basic biology
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:08:57 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)

In article <95197@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio (Chris Colby) writes:
>>	- Abiogenesis ?

>Abiogenesis is not a fact (IMHO) as an alternate hypothesis exists
>(panspermia).

I'm not quite sure I would count the possibility of panspermia as an
alternate to abiogenesis as I would count it as a mutant variant.  I
suppose you could argue for anautomatogenesis of silicon based life
that came up with nifty ways of programming carbon and sent out their
rocket probes around the galaxy, but at some point I leave such ideas
for Ted Holden to take care of.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)