HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:41:32 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep7.102513.26145@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Sep4.105722.26949@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
>>Siivonen) writes:
>>> 	I suppose you (all) know the famous Larus fuscus - Larus argentatus  
>>> 	-case ? In this it SEEMS to be speciation, but it's only micro-
>>> 	evolution. 
> 
>>  Would you mind being more specific?  Why is it considered microevolution? 
>>What are the circumstances that brought you to this conclusion.  What facts are
>>there from which this statement can be shown true?  And especially: why does
>>this prove speciation can't happen?
> 
> 	You see, they are one species, but Larus argentatus can't breed with 
> 	Larus fuscus fuscus. But L.f.f can breed with L.f.intermedius and 
> 	L.f.i can breed with L.f.heuglini and L.f.h can breed with L.f.taimyrien
> 	sis.... -> L.argentatus graellsii. 
> 

Then they cannot be one species.  One of the more common definitions of 
species is 'animals who freely interbreed and produce life fertile offspring.'
If they don't/can't interbreed then they are different species.

This is one of the more basic tenents of science.  If you have studied
science, how come you don't know this?

> 	This is the example that is shown to prove macroevolution (of course it
> 	is not showed like this), but I think you can see that Larus argentatus 
> 	and Larus fuscus are only distant races of the same gull, not species. 
> -- 
> 

What you are describing is speciation in action.


> 		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
> 
> 	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: Re: dawkins/_the selfish
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Distribution: talk
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 21:43:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.929.17251@dosgate> "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com> writes:
>Please forgive my ignorance and go slowly, but do you base your evidence
>for common descent on structural and genetic similarity in living forms
>and in fossilised remains?  I must say that I'm dubious of most such links
>I've seen so far, if only because similarity doesn't imply relation.

	Have you heard of pseudogenes?
	Apparently you think that birds and humans couldn't have once
shared a common ancestor. (right?) What about chimpanzees and humans?
Please draw the line and tell me why.

Rob Zuber (local pseudogenes peddler)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:44:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.121439@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
Bruce Salem said:
>> 	[...] the sole justification for the opinion is often because
>> "I'm a Christian." and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it by
>> saying "I'm a Christian too, and you are wong!" Neither statement
>> is substantive, and the error [ not substanciated in Scripture] 
>> is not corrected. [... making Christianity ] untrustworthy as a guide
>> for very much.
>
>  Don't take me the wrong way, but the same thing can be said about anything. 
>Niven's law: No cause is so noble that it doesn't attract kooks. 
>[...]  By your argument
>EVERYTHING is untrustworthy.  And by the way, if you think your cause has no
>kooks, you are probably one of the kooks.

	So how do you tell a kook from everyone else? I think that it
not is to be able to get a sound argument out of him, or even a consideration
of what he as said in the past by him. Another thing to note is that
certian traditions tolerate kooks more than others by their ability to
tolerate emotion and prejudice either by not having an arguable basis
or by appealing to something other than reason. Belief in UFOs is one
case. Certian kinds of Christianity are other examples.

	Lionel Tun is a kook by these definitions. Mike Simon is not
one as evidenced by all the years I have read him. My point to Mike
and everyone is that there is no force in Christianity that gives
Lionel less of a voice to call himself a Christian, and argue for
nonsense such as "Man has a purpose, which is to worship God." than
Mike has in saying that he is wrong.

	No one has actually argued that Lionel's assertion is untrue,
only that it is unsupported, but is it unjustified?

	As Lionel's assumption can be subsumed by the doctrine he
embraces as a Christian, and Mike Simon disagrees with him, as a
Christian, can we really trust that if Lionel is in error, that
his opinion is really addressable by Christians as an error or is
is a recurring opinion that cannot be delt with? Is Christianity too
broad and vague to purge itself of its own errors? I think so.

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 03:53:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.112526.20889@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>Then how come you think the book is so wonderful?
>
>	I give you a reverse answer: It doesn't contain trickery. 
>
>	Trickery is what magicians do: They make audience look to the right
>	hand when the left hand is working.

Oh, would this perhaps be analagous to talking (irrelevantly) about the
political status of one's hometown while ignoring requests for substantive
statements backing up one's claims?

Or maybe using bad algebra to cover up the fact that you don't have
any relevant criticisms to make of evolution?

 The same is done in science, but
>	using words, references and charts. 
>	
>	I have an example:
>
>	a = 3b/2   =   4a = 6b   =  (14-10)a = (21-15)b  or 14a-10a = 21b-15b
>	15b-10a = 21b-14a   =   5(3b-2a)  =  7(3b-2a)  =
>
>		5 = 7
>		=====

Neato.  Too bad you've failed to give a _relevant_ example; perhaps one
from the evolutionary literature.

>	I think you see the point. This was quite a simple example, I think 
>	you can find the error. Another could be: Shto nahoditshia linki 
>	vorubenniji ptitsi v evolutzeskiij protsess ? You use foreign 
>	language or jargon. This is common. Magician uses two methods: Draws
>	the attention elsewhere or hides the object. This is not honest 
>	science.  

You are grievously incorrect in the two main points you are trying
to make here.

  (1) You claim that _Life..._ does not stoop to "magicians'" tactics.
      This is patently untrue.  Several people have posted summaries
      of the serious misrepresentations and lies in this book, all
      of which you have ignored.  

  (2) You claim that science, particularly evolutionary biology, does
      stoop to such tactics.  However, what evidence do you offer
      of this?  A failed algebra exam and some Finnish words? You
      have been shown where the _Life_ book's faults lie, and
      have somehow failed to address these faults; you have, as yet,
      not given one hard example of such "magicians' tactics" in
      evolution.

Antti, if you cannot rectify at least one of these problems, by either
responding to the criticisms of _Life..._ or giving some substantive
evidence that science stoops to the methods you claim, I for one
would vote that you keep your ass out of talk.origins.        
    
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Alleged Incongruities in Geologic Column
Date: 12 Sep 92 01:59:52 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep10.191134.26352@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
|I'm currently embroiled in an e-mail conversation with a creationist
|who claims that the existence of, for example, upright trees and shells
|which span sedimentary layers is evidence that the column was deposited
|in the Noachian Flood.
|
It is evidence of *flooding*, but not of The Flood.

Now let's see, when investigating a set of sediments that have been
identified as laid down in the floodplain of a major river, I find
evidence of flooding in the form of upright trees.

What could be more sensible?  More *expected*?  I mean, why does he think
the low lying area around a river is *called* a *flood*plain!

Perhaps, just maybe, because fooding is *frequent* there?

The simple fact is that such upright trees are found in *exactly* the
kinds of places one would expect to find them - often in old floodplains.

Another common sort of place for upright trees is in deep layers of volcanic
ash.  (Hmm, I wonder what could have happened there? NOT)

Now an upright tree in a marine limestone bed would be a real surprise.
But I have never heard of any such thing.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Creationism Philosophy  (was: White skin--how)?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:35:13 GMT

In article <994@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <MAGUIRE.92Sep2135624@sun.clarkson.edu> maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire) writes:
>|
>|Many organisms cooperate for survival.   Social insects (they've found
>|a small rodent that lives like a social insect, see the august issue
>|of Scientific America),
>
>The Naked Mole Rat is a bizarre animal indeed.  Not only is it eusocial
>(a technical term for an ant/bee like life style) it is *cold-blooded*!

Naked mole rats (_Heterocephalus glaber_) appear in Episode 10, "Friends and
Rivals," of Sir David Attenborough's _The Trials of Life_.  We get to see the
soldiers driving off an invading snake.  Time Life Video is hawking the series
on the TNT cable channel with lots of hype ("Uncensored footage!  Nature In
The Raw!"), but it really is superb.  The number for ordering was 1-800-
525-1600 (it this doesn't work, don't blame me; it was a couple of months
ago).  There's a discount if you buy the entire series at once.

On a recent visit to the National Zoological Park, I asked about their
displaying naked mole rats.  They told me that there's a colony in the
propagation building and that they hope to have colony on display "soon."
They also told me that the nearest zoo to DC with them is Philadelphia's.
I've also heard that the London Zoo (if they're still in business) has a
colony on display.

>It was also effectively predicted using evolutionary theory, before it
>was properly discovered.  (A scientist who was studying social insects
>said something to the effect of 'if a eusocial mammal exists it will be
>like so', and lo, he was right).

Upon hearing of this a couple of months ago, I went to the public library
to look for books by Richard D. Alexander.  All that I found was _Darwinism
and Human Affairs_ from 1979, but I highly recommend it.  In the book he
emphasizes that the usefulness of a theory depends on successful predictions.

-- Herb Huston
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:04:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep3.122057.17144@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 	This is not true: It has been tested that Finnish is learnt slowliest. 
> 	I have lived among Savonian (Finnish dialect) speaking people almost 
> 	my entire life (except the first six months), still Savonians find 
> 	that I'm not a native speaker of the language. 

Then I'm a walking genius because I learned Swedish and Finnish
before I was 7 years old.

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
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: an eternity with Lionel -- egad
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:13:39 GMT

In article <95481@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>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.

	Yeah, Heaven must be a God-dammed bore, as for hell, some
say it is here on earth. Sounds like an interesting place to me.
Are there thrill-seekers in Heaven if everybody there is Good?

	Maybe all the do gooder Christians make it to heaven, then
again maybe they don't, then again Heaven is bound to be a real
bore, kind of a perpetual Mormon Tabernacle Choir, where Mormons
and Christians are there a-plenty. Did J. S. Bach make it there?
Maybe he is just decomposing, or maybe he has to play the Crab
Canon from the Misical Offering for-ever, ewig, ewig. Even dear
old Johann will get bored.

Bruce Salem
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Is Antti a JW? (was Re: macroevolution)
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:56:12 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep11.113326.21216@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
> >What the fuck are you talking about, Antti?  I use curse words all the
> >time, where I feel it is appropriate.  The *point* is, that Jehovah's
> >Witnesses aren't supposed to curse.  Remember Ephesians 4:29?
> 
> 	Yes, but I don't curse. 

I guess calling someone 'pisshead' is not considered cursing. But
it's considered to be something very uncivilized. If your religion
prohibits such behavior, and my anti-religion tells me that it's 
very dirty indeed, then we live in interesting times where
an agnostic is trying to teach a deist moral behavior :-).

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: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: an eternity with Lionel -- egad
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:11:16 GMT
	<1992Sep8.011339.29133@morrow.stanford.edu>
	<1992Sep8.062559.3951@desire.wright.edu>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 8 Sep 92 11:25:59 GMT, sbishop@desire.wright.edu said:


> Does anyone have Mark Twain's remark about heaven and hell in their memory?
> I'm drawing a blank but seem to remember he said something very apt about
> the company in hell.

According to our fortune database, it's

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company."
                 [Mark Twain]

--
Bruce Stephens.  Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Liverpool Univ.
Internet: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk     JANET: bruce@uk.ac.liv.uxb
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Hydraulic Sorting
Keywords: Hydraulic Brain-death All-Wet and Leaky-Arguments
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:43:27 GMT

In article <12542@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>, mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.133449.21750@news.nd.edu>Tom Scharle writes:
>
>    [ ... ]
>    The fossils were hydraulicly (or is it "hydrologically" -- could
>    someone tell me?) sorted in the Flood.  So the creationists tell us.
>    Wouldn't that be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics?  Or, 
>    for that matter, any other mechanism which would sort the fossils.
>    [ ... ]
>
>   No, such sorting does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.  Think about
>[..]

Tom Scharle doesn't read t.o any more, so I'll defend him.
You don't see the context here.  Tom doesn't really want to say that the second
law is violated.  He mocks creationist argumentation.  Creationists have again
and again stated that evolution, as it increases order, decreases entropy (which
is wrong) and is therefore impossible.  Now this sorting mechanism is claimed by
creationists themselves, and it occurred to Tom that, *according to their own
weird version of the second law*, this mechanism would be impossible.  He didn't
make it too clear, though...

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Date: 5 Sep 92 22:23:12 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <10580@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Sep2.143847@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
> >or evangelical propaganda on the comics pages?  How long has B.C.
> >been pulling this stuff?
> 
> Well, B.C. has *always* has contemporary hominids and dinosuars.

Yes, his scientific background in B.C reminds me of Creationism.

I'm more of a Calvin & Hobbe philosopher. Why worry about things
that we don't know anything about? Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy....

Kent
who's son is growing up to become a similar person, questioning
everything.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Oh, thank you! Thank you!
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  10:53:08

Tag: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au (Bundoora Campus)
Tag: 1992Sep11.153652.12928@phillip.edu.au
 
BC> "It appears to me that the only thing wrong with BC is
BC> that paranoid [sic] evolutionists disagree with it, which
BC> in their eyes makes it wrong. All the flack the strip has
BC> received recently shows a real fear [sic] of anything
BC> opposing evolutionary views. Don't fall into the trap
BC> many evolutionists accuse creationists of, that is to
BC> suffer from tunnel vision.
 
Why, your unassailable logic and fundamental grasp of the facts
here has TURNED MY LIFE AROUND! Thank you! Thanks to your brilliant
message (reproduced above) I am now utterly and completely convinced
towards your point of view. Your clarity of vision and forthright
moral character is what I will henceforth strive towards.
 
Keep up the good work.
 
BC> "I haven't noticed any posts condeming yoga/meditation/eastern
BC> philosophy in public schools. Don't be a Christophobe [sic]."
 
Wait until it happens, then you will.
 
P.S. I'm a ignorantophobe.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Origins according to JW's?
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:53:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1018@esosun.UUCP>, ethan@edda.css.gov (Ethan Brown) writes...
>Has there ever been a publication created to address this book?  I've
>seen some of the quotes from this book shown in their true context
>here on talk.origins that make it clear they were taken out of
>context.  Some of the references it quotes are quite obscure
>(newspaper articals, popular magazine articles, etc.), so it would be
>helpful to read a critical review of the "Blue Book", if one is
>available.

Try:

Hector Avalos, "The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society,"
   _Free Inquiry_ 12(2, Spring 1992):28-31.
Malcolm P. Levin, "Life--How It Got Here: A Critique of a View from
   the Jehovah's Witnesses," _Creation/Evolution_ 12(1, Summer 1992,
   issue 30):29-34.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Back to "Bales' scales"
Date: 12 Sep 92 01:21:24 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep10.124146.20020@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|=============================================================================
|1.
|>From: sarima@gryphon.COM (Stan Friesen)
|Date: 15 Jul 89 15:49:15 GMT

I'm honored!  My extemporaneous prose is being preserved for posterity!


Now let's see, should we give Bob Bales the Ted Holden award, or should
we give Ted Holden the Bob Bales award :-)


Other than spouting different classes of nonsense, the two are almost
indistinguishable.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:41:41 GMT
	<1992Sep8.164007@IASTATE.EDU> <1992Sep10.095949.26234@city.cs>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 10 Sep 92 09:59:49 GMT, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) said:

> If you want to question this, ask Him yourself.

Does anyone have His phone number?

--
Bruce Stephens
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:13:21 GMT

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>But you ignored *MY* point, that this is really speciation in action.  The
>subspecies on the extreme ends of the range have evolved in different
>directions, thus are diverging in an evolutionary sense.

	True. 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Is Antti a JW? (was Re: macroevolution)
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:44:39 GMT

corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
>Yeh, he a JW allright, and I emailed him and told him I was going
>to tell on him for saying "bullshit"!

	Hey, listen now, dudes ! I've lived in streets and to me your hypocriti-
	cal and bourgeois playing with nice wordings is just what I said it to
	be, bullshit. 

	I think "bullshit" is more natural than f**k. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 25,000,000 year-old BEE?????????
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:51:22 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <Bu31yC.p3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> sjc28473@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven Joseph Chmura) writes:
|
|"Scientists have found DNA from a bumble bee 25,000,000 (yes, million) year
|old.  This is forcing science to re-think the Evolotionary clock.."
|
|Well, as I have no backspace key I will not correct the spellings but....
|
|1)  How old are Bees anyway?
|2)  Was this a joke?

1)  The oldest known fossil bee is from the Late Cretaceous, about 70
million years ago.

2) Probably not.  Fossil DNA is all the rage nowadays.

Now, I suspect he garbled the 'evolutionary clock' bit.  It is more likely
that what is being questioned is the DNA clock (the hypothesis that DNA
sequences change at an aproximately constant rate over time, so that DNA
divergence levels can be used to estimate time since divergence).

This is, and always has been, somewhat controversial anyway.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins