HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: mutations of DNA
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:50:51 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Oct9.155114.22422@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
>
>    In an email conversation, a correspondent wrote that
>DNA is not only unlikely to mutate successfully, it even corrects 
>itself and wants to return to its original form, even when 
>mutations are intentionally introduced.

DNA replication enzymes do have error-correcting functions.
However, there is always a background number of mutations that do
occur.  Once mutated, the DNA does NOT return to its original form,
except in the case of another random mutation causing a reversion
back to the original base.  Notably, this addresses only single
point mutations.  Other mutations, such as deletions, insertions,
rearrangements, etc. are not subject to the normal error-correcting
machinery of DNA polymerase.


-- 
Steve Linke
Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
La Jolla, CA
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel   IMPORTANT !
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:02:32 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct8.023324.12676@rhrk.uni-kl.de> kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
|In article <BRUCE.92Oct6104558@suprenum.uxb.liv.ac.uk>, bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
|>But as far as I'm aware nobody actually believes that life has always
|>been here, and certainly Dawkins doesn't.  
|
|Fred Hoyle does.  The stationary-universe and what-was-the-name-again-
|I'll-call-it-"life-on-earth-came-from-comets" guy.
|
Yep, but he's about the only one though.  And most of his compatriots
both in astronomy and biology think he's full of it.

Also note that the steady-state universe is a necessary prerequisite to the
'life-always-existed' idea, so he is at least logically consistant.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation! NOT!!
Date: 6 Oct 92 10:48:06 +0200
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Oct1.140816@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>    What an incredible example of creationist reasoning:
> 
>    (I) Take information out of context,
> 
>    (II) Using two data points,
> 
>    (III) Select a simple model without justifying it, 
> 
>    (IV) and "prove" something with the above garbage while ignoring
>         10^12 _facts_ that show the statement proved to be wrong in
>         any case.
> 
> Point-by-point:
> 
> In article <1992Oct1.135043.23660@cbnews.cb.att.com>, ran@cbnews.cb.att.com
> (Robert A. Neinast) writes:
>> 
>> A new scientific study has now given us the data to show that the
>> creation certainly occurred after 33,000 BC and strong evidence
>   [A lot of indignant response deleted]
> Dan
> Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

I rather enjoyed Robert's humourous post (at the expense of creationists). It
was good satire highlighting the scientific naivity of some creationists, and
as good satire, it did not require smilies to denote humour. Unfortunately,
while the original article highlighted the scientific naivity of some
creationists, some of the responses have highlighted a different fault amongst
some anti-creationists - the inability to detect humour in the absence of a
smilie.

To Dan, and others who gave a similar knee-jerk reaction to Robert's post,
as much as scientific naivity is a dissadvantage to creationists, so too is
humour-impairment to scientific endeavour. We scientists need to have a sense
of humour, to laugh at our own limitations, ignorance and preconceived ideas as
we try to understand the world around us. If we don't have this ability then we
are to be the most pitied of men ( and women :-)  ).
Gary
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: fossil, schmossil... what about the bug!?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 19:22:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.175555.25454@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
>   I thought that these articles were interesting for these reasons: 
>
>      It confirms that chimps are closer to humans than they are to 
>                 gorillas, hence that the classification of "ape" 
>                 which includes both chimps and gorillas probably 
>                 ought also to include humans (so, you see, we are 
>                 descended from apes, because we are apes)

Back in the '60s a zoologist wrote a book with that point of view that sold
about 10 million copies.

>                                                           -- also,
>                 as pointed out, it is another case of a rock guy
>                 agreeing with the molecule guys (is there a
>                 trend emerging?)

Yes, it's reassuring that independent lines of inquiry can support each other.

>      Dryopithecus branchoi may be the nearest common ancestor of 
>                 gorillas, chimpanzees and humans (there seems to 
>                 have been some concern to some people in t.o that 
>                 such fossils were lacking)

And I'm still waiting for Lionel Tun to post an analysis of _Australopithecus
afarensis_.  Of course, I suppose he can take the easy way out and say "Since
humans are apes, _A. afarensis_ was an ape, too."  Somehow, I doubt that he
will, though.

>   I had hoped that, for these reasons, it would be a little
>controversial in talk.origins.  Maybe that we could learn something
>as a sideline to conversations with creationists.

As you probably saw, not everyone agrees with Begun's analysis.

>In article <Bvp1uK.G2@access.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>|> In article <1992Oct5.174235.18587@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
> ...
>     [points out a couple of mistakes in my posting]
>|> >    D. R. Begun: Miocene Fossil Hominids and the Chimp-Human
>|> >Clade, pp. 1929-33
>|> 
>|> Hominids or hominoids?  The former seems implausible.
>  ...
>   I did a bit of reading on this.  It seems that there are some
>people who maintain that apes and humans are in the same family,
>that is Hominidae, thus the term "hominid" would be appropriate.
>Others place apes in a separate family, Pongidae, and thus the
>appropriate name for including both apes and humans would be
>"hominoid".  Have I got that right?

Yes, I think so, and you definitely didn't mistype the title of the
article.  I noticed that Begun referred to chimps as _Pan_ and gorillas
as _Gorilla_ and included references to the revised taxonomy.  I haven't
been able to check those references yet.  [Space available below for anyone
who has.]

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:20:14 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Oct6.110701.11591@hsr.no>
onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>
>There are tons of geological evidence that genesis is wrong. I wont
>even bother presenting them here since this newsgroup are full of
>well-written articles on the subject. Read them.

Wrong.  There are tons of geological evidence that some of the
interpretations of Genesis are wrong.

Mark
-- 
   No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a
searching but at the same time with a steady eye.
   -- Winston Churchill
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: A little joke
Summary: If Bruce really objects to people talking outside of their
          field, then why hasn't he noticed Onar?
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:42:39 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


I don't know why, but for the past week or so I keep being reminded of
a joke when I read this newsgroup.  This is a slightly modified
version of it:

Three men, Lionel, Onar and Andy, get into a taxi one night, and the
taxi driver turns out to be an evil demon.  He tells them that he is
going to kill them all, but that he will grant each of them a wish
before doing so.  He asks them to specify their wishes.  Lionel goes
first.  He is crafty and tells the demon that he is working on a
theory of creationism that he would like to get published before he
dies (thus ensuring that he will live a long and unproductive life).

The demon now turns to Onar.  Onar says that he is a mathemetician,
and he's already done a lot in that area, but he also has some great
ideas about biology.  He's never formally studied biology, but he
thinks his ideas about it are so fantastic that it would be a real
shame if he didn't get a chance to share them with people before he
died.  The demon says that Onar can call together a large conference
to inform people of his insights.

When the demon turns to Andy, Andy says that he is a biologist, and he
would like to be killed immediately so that he doesn't have to listen
to Onar's talk.

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden and the C programming language
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:27:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <67@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote:
> K&R C compilers, free with UNIX, are a classic example of getting what
> you pay for in life.  

Well, gcc is also free, and that handles ANSI C, C++, Objective C
and K&R C. So K&R is not a classic example, especially when you 
actually pay for the UNIX license and cc is part of the license fees!

Anyway, I know, this is talk.origin, could Ted let us know what he
thinks of all the new SW applications that shows how genes, evolution
and many other interesting complex systems work? Are the part of 
a devilish plan to destroy the minds of the modern man?

Cheers,
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.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller)
Subject: Re: Plant Death before the Fall (Gall Bladders Anyone?)
Organization: Hewlett Packard
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:38:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.112302@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> In article <1243@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|> > 	5. The brain wiring that makes a cat instinctively eat meat
|> > 	   could not have been present.
|> 
|>   Just a small point, but cats do not instinctively eat meat.  If you raised a
|> housecat you would notice that, while it took great delight in killing small
|> animals, it never eats them.  A cat has to be brough up in the wild to make the
|> connection between dead animals and food.  A housecat has no idea what to do
|> with the dead animal once it is dead.

This is one of the more popular urban myths, and it probably continues
to remain viable because there is a grain of truth to it.

However, the absolute nature of this statement is simply not true. I say
this from direct observation, as I currently have two kittens, each 6 months
old, that discovered about five weeks ago how much fun a small living
animal can be. Since then my wife and I have been treated to an assortment of
mice, birds, lizards, and of course, some pretty gross bugs (the bugs are
the worst).

After these little creatures started showing up in the house, it took about
two weeks before the kittens taught themselves how to torture them to
death. Took about another week to learn that they could munch on these
little hors d'ouvres. One of the kittens in particular, who never was too
enamored with Science Diet, really goes for the fresh meat thing.

Note that we adopted both of these kittens at 3 weeks age, far too young to
have learned any hunting skills, let alone being taught them by their mother.
Further, I doubt they were taught these skills by another neighborhood cat,
as there aren't any that have shown a particular interest in our kittens,
who don't venture more than about 10 feet from our property anyway.

It is very lear to me that they not only learned to kill these creatures on
their own, but their taste for the meat kicked in very quickly after
discovering that a dead mouse is no longer fun to chase, but has other
possible uses.

What *IS* interesting to me, and matches well with feline behavior
characteristics that I have heard before, is *how* they kill. They're very
inefficient, torturing their prey to death as I mentioned before. They
have no concept of the efficient choke-hold that cats of almost all species
use, including feral, but presumably must be taught by the mother rather
than obtained through instinct.

My own observations of Anna and Ariel seem to confirm this. However, it
took no teaching at all to get them to have a taste for meat, which
they seem to have had from day one (especially Ariel, Miss "I hate Science
Diet" -- of course, I'm Mr. "eat it or starve", so she does). BTW, Ariel
started eating bugs whole as soon as she discovered them outside.
Her favorites are these 1" long beetles that have a throbbing abdomen
and make a hissing sound. I won't even touch them.

-- 
Dave Waller
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What makes a creationist?
Keywords: creationist
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:45:14 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct13.031154.20914@morrow.stanford.edu>
     salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

>	I can only judge by the people who debate here that
>the thing that seems to characterize most of them is that they
>are moralistic control freaks and most of them are engineers.

Bruce, how many times have you said something like this over the past
8 years, and how many of those times has it resulted in people getting
aggravated with you?  Has it occurred to you that you may be confused
here by a sampling bias?  Perhaps there is a disproportionate number
of engineers that claim here to be creationists just because there is
a disproportionate number of engineers that happen to have easy access
to the net.  

In the past I think I've been one of the people that have let this
slide, but I'm getting kind of sick of you repeating it.  I know that
you're not saying anything about the probability of a person being a
creationist given that that person is an engineer (rather you're
talking about the probability of a person being an engineer given that
the person is a creationist), but it still rankles me.  I think that
your datum is false.  I also think you're opening yourself up to
believe that engineers are more distant from the philosophical aspects
of science and knowledge, and I think that's bogus to.

I have a degree in engineering, and although I'm currently pursuing a
degree in a "pure" science, I work closely with an engineer here (the
ee in my address stands for electrical engineering).  In my
experience, engineers are *not* typically prone to the sort of sloppy
thinking evidenced here by the likes of James Paul Henley and Robert
Bales.

So put up or shut up, Bruce.  What support do you have for the belief
that "most [creationists] are engineers."?
      ^^^^

>Bruce Salem

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Back to "Bales Scales"
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:49:33 GMT



>    The question for you, Bob, is this: Since the astronomical
>    periods do *not* depend in any way on radiometric dating, and
>    since these same periods show up in cores dated *by* radiometric
>    dating (the dreaded K-Ar and uranium series dating) is this not
>    an *independent* test of radiometric dating?  If not, why?

I guess the rate at which the earth orbits must have been much greater
in the past, eh?  Maybe we can get Norman and Setterfield to look
into it?

Keith
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: a clarification from Ted?
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:53:59 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <55@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}In article <pwcprwd@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:
} 
}> >There were no animals on the southern hemisphere.  I mean, why live  
}> >in darkness when you could live in light [?]
} 
}> 	WHOA!  Hold on a second.  I can't see how else this could be  
}> interpreted, but I'll give you the chance to clairify anyway: Are you  
}> really saying there were no animals living in the southern hemisphere  
}> during the time of "reduced felt effect of gravity" - the time of  
}> dinosaurs and Pangea - i.e. the early Mesozoic (Triassic) in  
}> conventional geology - because there was no light?  
}
}No light, and no land to live on.  Think about it.  All the land was in
}one place, Pangaea, anmd all the land was directly under whatever had
}pulled it all into one place, the which location coincided with the
}North magnetic pole, since the whole thing was electromagnetic.

Close.  Now think:  No light from saturn (hehehehehheheh).  Now, given
that the close side (hohohohohohoho) was human habatable (temperature
range), what was the temperature on this "dark side" and why?

}Only a fish with a love of darkness would have been living in the southern
}hemisphere.

biochemistry based on liquid ammonia, I'd wager.

}Naturally, given such conditions, magnetic and geological poles were
}the same.

Right.  Give us some indication that you inderstand the physical and
geological requirements for the location of the magnetic pole.  And
then publish and become famous.  "naturally"?!?!?!?!

hint: the magnetic and geological poles are not the same now.
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:45:45 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1188@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:

>In article <1992Oct3.085116.24721@smds.com> ishmael!rh writes:
>|Baluchatherium, which was a mammal and was in the sauropod
>|weight class, was a ruminant.  The evidence is pretty good that sauropods
>|had gizzards.

Mea culpa.  Baluchatherium wasn't a ruminant; it was a large rhinocerus.

>|Incidentally, what evidence are you talking about for cold-blooded
>|sauropods? 

	--- ingenious method deleted ---

I missed that the first time around.  That's really very pretty.

The puzzling thing is how one branch of the dinosauria could be
cold blooded and the rest not.  If the ancestral dinosaurs were
endotherms, which seems indicated, then the sauropods either lost
endothermy or else evolved into ectothermy or a thermal regime
effectively equivalent to ectothermy.  When one thinks on it
there is some plausibility to that notion; there are real advantages
to ectothermy (lowered food requirements, fewer problems with heat
loss).

How reliable is the pattern determination?
-- 
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.
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:01:52 GMT
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas

In article <1992Oct5.181204.5855@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
>>Good point, Antti, but it could you explain to me how land plants
>>and fish could have survived without the warmth of the sun's
>>rays?  Surely decreased visibility would have affected the
>>earth's biota to some extent, right?  After all, plants need
>>sunlight to photosynthesize so the fish can eat them, right?
>
>	Right ! I think they survive in the cloudy days as well as cloudless.
>	(there wasn't obviously TOTAL DARKNESS on earth).     

Are you sure?  I mean, it seems like you previously said that
noone could see the sun or moon previous to that day.....so how
was there light?  Did the sun shine through the clouds?  You
assume there were "cloudy days as well as cloudless [days]."  If
there were cloudless days, then an observer on the earth could
see the sun!  And that conflicts with your interpretation of the
Bible!  This is just clarifying to me how vague the Bible is and
how silly it was to claim that the chances of the writer of
Genesis "getting the order correct" was 1 in 10!

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


-- 
corey@sdf.lonestar.org  214-296-0458   Corey Carroll
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Senile Prattle, one reply
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:01:10 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

Tag: news (news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden))
 
TH> "There were no animals on the southern hemisphere. I mean,
TH> why live in darkness when you could live in light [?]"
 
??> WHOA! Hold on a second. I can't see how else this could be
??> interpreted, but I'll give you the chance to clairify anyway:
??> Are you really saying there were no animals living in the
??> southern hemisphere during the time of 'reduced felt effect
??> of gravity' - the time of dinosaurs and Pangea - i.e. the
??> early Mesozoic (Triassic) in conventional geology - because
??> there was no light?
 
TH> "No light, and no land to live on. Think about it. All the
TH> land was in one place, Pangaea, anmd all the land was directly
TH> under whatever had pulled it all into one place, the which
TH> location coincided with the North magnetic pole, since the
TH> whole thing was electromagnetic. [P] Only a fish with a love
TH> of darkness would have been living in the southern hemisphere.
TH> [P] Naturally, given such conditions, magnetic and geological
TH> poles were the same."
 
Oh, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted! (Ted, Ted, Ted!) You are the source
of such delight and enjoyment, some times I wished I had you as
a professor in college. You know, the senile old hairy thing that
wanders the campus muttering to himself, whom everyone thinks is
a little, er, ah, "off," but everyone enjoys, and not a few young
women are a bit afraid of. We could affectionately refer to you
as "The Tedster."
 
Please, don't ever change.
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:36:24 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <Bvs689.1n3@world.std.com>, twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:

*>The genius whose brain spawned this thing was Immanuel Velikovsky, a Swiss
*>psychiatrist.  Physicists who have read his books say that the history part
*>sounds reasonable, but the physics part is bullshit, whereas historians think
*>it's the other way around.

That's a Sagan line;  you can tell when somebody has no real case to make
on its own merits...

*Did Velikovsky actually suggest all this gravity stuff? I was under
*the impression that it came from a fringe group of his followers, like

This appears in a couple of very old articles of Velikovsky's, one of 
which was reprinted in Kronos during the seventies.  Velikovsky never fully
developed the Saturn model;  David Talbott and Dwardu Cardona have done
that.  As far as I know, I am the first and only person who has tried to
quantify the extent of the problem which large animals would face in our
present gravitational system.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE