HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Darwinism is dead !
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:58:56 GMT

>In article <1992Sep29.134901.7054@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>>It is Creationism, not evolution, which says that some species are more
>>>advanced than others.
>>>
>>
>>You are right. No species are more "advanced" than others in evolutionary
>terms,
>>merely more adapted. However, species have different COMPLEXITIES. This is
>>important to grasp. A bacteria is less complex than a human, but not
>necessarily
>>less advanced. 
>
>  Well, first you have to convince me that a bacteria is less complex than a
>human.  I know there are earthworms with over twice as much DNA as humans, so
>amount of genetic information is not a good indicator (unless you do want
>earthworms to be more complex than humans in your definition).
>
>  To do this we need an objective measure of complexity.
>>
> |  __L__   *******************************
>-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
> |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
> |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
>/|   ___    * Math Department             *
>> |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
> |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
> J  _____   *******************************

Sure, there are many species, including worms, flowers and amphibians that have
longer genomes than ourselves. But does any of them have more ACTIVE GENES? No, I
don't think so. Remember, (I have discussed this earlier a lot) more than 95% of
the genome in many "higher" species is junk-DNA. And that doesn't count when you
measure complexity. See my article just before this on complexity. Can anyone
come up with species with more active genes than humans? That would be very
interesting. If there are some, then some flowers, I think, would be a candidate.
They seem to duplicate the whole genome every now and then. But still these "new"
genes are inactive so they wouldn't count either, I think.


Onar.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: a brief tirade
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:21:48 GMT

Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:

: Are you by any chance referring to the ever changing theory of
: evolution?

	Lionel, stay out of this.  It's way over your head.  BTW,
I respect your Christian beliefs.  With respect to science, they're 
all wrong.  As soon as you accept that you're wrong, maybe we can talk --
and I can cite another fundie whose mind I've opened.  Knowing you,
it's very doubtful.  I'm not holding my breath.

	Boice, in "Genesis:  An Expositional Commentary", has this to
say about six-day creationism and flood geology:
	"In spite of the careful biblical (O.K.) and scientific (ha ha -
Boice is just trying to sound fair) research that has accumulated in 
support of the creationist's view, there are problems that make the 
theory WRONG to most (including MANY EVANGELICAL) scientists.  We
conclude by listing the MOST important.
	- old earth, older universe
	- validity of radiometric dating
	- validity of non-radiometric dating

Next section, still quoting:
	"A second problem, which bothers most geologists and some other
people as well, is the USE OF THE FLOOD TO EXPLAIN THE VARIOUS STRATA
OF THE EARTH'S OUTER CRUST", *particularly* those that contain FOSSILS."
	
	Lionel, do you get it yet?  This guy is a theologian. 
He was Chairman of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy!!!!! 
And he says the FLOOD is a problem.  He gives credence to the geologists.
This book was published by Zondervan, it's a Christian book.
	And I'm a devout  0Christian.  And a scientist.
	Pray for enlightenment, Lionel, and Vision.  You just don't have
it.
	Now I've got to get back to Chris.  I repeat -- stay out of it
until you accept that science is basically RIGHT.  And that we can
appreciate the design of God, and be awed by it, through the proper practice
of science (and not trying to belittle it), as SCIENCE stands as one of the
Creator's greatest gifts to his creation -- our ability to discern His
underlying pattern in the fabric of the Universe.  And implicit, our
duty to be stewards of His Creation. 
	For me, all of CC's listing of the design "flaws" in creatures points
to one thing -- God loves diversity.  That's why He designed DNA.

	Cheerio, mate!  Hip hip and all that!

	Jim Acker	
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: More on Bob and Ice Cores
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:35:01 EST
Organization: Wright State University 



No, Bob, the tests on ice core dating do NOT depend totally on counting
layers as you stated.  They depend also on running tests on those layers.
Several different tests are done, in addition to counting the layers.
And guess what?  The tests *ALL* correlate with each other.  You never 
have come up with an explanation as to why this is so.  You just say
that perhaps there is another explanation but don't come up with a better
one.  
I know you really don't want to discuss this, even though you have been
asked to do so by many different group members.  Can you give us a concrete
time as to when you will further discuss this?

Sue
From: reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens Peter Reus Christensen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:35:31 GMT
Organization: University of Copenhagen, Dept. of Math.


   

   They can start with telling us what the "theory of 'creationism'"
   is. That I'd like to read.
****
Despite being both scientist and creationist I do not possess a
" theory of creationism " ! I am aware of some but they are 
outdated as Scientific theories . I do not share most "theories"
appearing on the net which sounds to me like American political
speaches.

--
|------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Jens Peter Reus Christensen   |                           |
|  Associate professor, Dr. Phil.|                           |
|  Department of mathematics     | e-mail:reus@math.ku.dk    |
|  University of Copenhagen      |                           |
|  Universitetsparken 5          | phone: +45 353 20758      |
|  DK-2100 Copenhagen            | fax:   +45 353 20704      |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Disclaimer: Except when explicitly stated otherwise any   |
|  message with this signature is the authors purely private |
|  responsibility.                                           |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Motto : For everyone who has will be given more, and he   |
|  will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what  |
|  he has will be taken from him.                            |
|  Matthew principle - Matth.Ch.25 v.29                      |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:02:07 GMT

>>Hydrological sorting.  OK Lionel, I'll buy that if you can tell me
>>two things:  1.  Where did all the water come from.  and  2.  Where
>>did it go.  Remember, no miracles.  This is science not belief.
>
>1. The water came from the water vapour canopy around the earth.
>2. The water ended up in the oceans.
>
>This also explains why lifespans became shorter after the flood,
>because of the cosmic rays getting through and causing ageing.
>I can supply details of lifespans if you wish.
>
>>Claude Shouse
>

What I think he meant was that there is needed A) a miracle to get so much water
to cover ALL of the earth and B) a miracle to keep all that water up in the sky. 
Breaf calculations should tell us that it would be dark day and night. And even
if you don't accept evolution, you have to accept that the sunlight is the source
of energy to ALL life on earth. Or is that just another miracle? To me your
explanation seems like a wild, frustrated stab in the dark. And dark is what it
would be if your hypothesis is correct. Just admit it. You don't adhere to
science at all, do you, DO YOU? You love'em miracles don't you, DON'T YOU!!!???
Please stick to miracles and leave science be. That's a lot more honourable than
smudging and raping science! Even Saddam Hussein is more reasonable than your
explanation!  


(phew, that did good.)


Onar.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: evolution and natural selection
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:10:47 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <BvGn3G.AC8.2@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
|> From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
|> 
|> evolution: a change in the gene pool of a population over time
|> (or, more narrowly,a change in allele frequency)
|
|Since neither Darwin or Wallace knew anything about genes or alleles, I will
|admit to a certain discomfort with this definition. It seems to me that the
|core of evolution is common ancestry. 

Hey, remember how we all keep carping on the fact that Darwin's writings
are *not* treated as 'gospel', and that much has changed since then.

This is one of them.  In fact Darwin's understanding of inheritance was
miniscule compared to what we have since learned.

If you *really* want to keep the thing defined in Darwinian (as opposed to
neo-Darwinian) terms, you could say that evolution is heritable change
from an ancestral condition.

|> natural selection: differential reproductive success of (pre-existing)
|> genotypes in a population
|
|Similarly, natural selection would be a fairly useless concept if which
|genotypes showed greater reproductive success was random. Why not define it
|as "(pre-existing) genotypes which are more fit (in an objective,
|engineering sense) increase in frequency in a population."

This is a little difficult - it is not clear that it is possible to determine
reproductive fitness a priori.  (At least at our present state of knowledge).

Thus, differential reproductive success is often our only *usable* metric
of fitness. (Though life history studies are beginning to get to the point
where they can be used to predict reproductive success, at least under some
conditions).


-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation! NOT!!
Date: 4 Oct 92 01:52:22 GMT
Distribution: na,local
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <3OCT199211564736@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>He was joking, but I bet he could get it published in the _Bible-Science
>Newsletter_.

Do you have their address? It might be a fun exercise to see if he
really could get it published there 8-)

>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Hydrological sorting" (was: "Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!")
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:50:43 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Sep28.223933.9207@alc.com> stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
>Lionel Tun writes:
>> All [the fossil record] shows is that different forms of life appear
>> in the fossil record at different _layers_!
>
>This is at least different from Lionel's original claim, which was that
>the fossil record was merely a figment of "evolutionists'" imaginations.
>Is this a half-hearted admission of error, Mr. Tun?

No. The two statements are entirely compatible. To say that
fossils appear in various layers is one thing. But to piece
together assorted layers from round the world and assemble
a supposed historical timescale is entirely another.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (Mark R. Baith)
Subject: Questions in Discover
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:21:39 GMT


	Just a quick note:  This month's Discover cover story is 
"10 Great Unanswered Questions of Science".  3 of the questions are
interesting from an "origins" point of view:  "How did Life start?" --
at first glance, a good summary of the state of the science;  
"Is Anyone Out There?" -- search for extraterrestrial intelligence;  and
"Who Peopled the Planet?" -- What happened after the earliest human
ancestors evolved?
	Only glanced at the article on abiogenesis.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: self-deceptive belief maintenance
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:47:52 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <28SEP199219122923@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>I would like to collect examples of self-deceptive strategies which can
>be observed in argument techniques by creationists in order to avoid
>being persuaded by anti-creationist arguments.  (Those of you who
>are creationists are also welcome to contribute examples of strategies
>used by evolutionists to avoid being persuaded by creationist arguments.)

Define creationist, please.

Mark
-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation!
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:19:57 EST
 <1992Oct2.211226.4503@desire.wright.edu> <1aj94iINNp7f@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1aj94iINNp7f@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>, jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.211226.4503@desire.wright.edu> 
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>In article <91106@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>, hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com 
>> (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50) writes:
>>> 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
>>>>shows that it probably occurred in 5386 BC.
>>>>In the "Journal of the American Medical Association", Philip Mackowiak has
>>>>recently measured the average human body temperature (he's at the University
>>>>of Maryland).  His result is 98.2 degrees F.  There is significance to these
>>>>new findings, since the 1868 study of Carl Wunderlich showed that,
>>>>in humans, the average body temperature at that time was 98.6 degrees F.  He
>>>>collected the data using OVER ONE MILLION PEOPLE.  
> 
>>I read something about this recently.  But the info *I* read said that the
>>latest studies put average body temperature at *99.2* or theres-abouts.  
>>If this study is true then your whole wild fantasy crumbles immediately.
> 
> On the contrary it becomes even more accurate, even more exact, and
> EVEN BETTER!  Taking the temperature to be 99.2 deg F in 1992 and
> 98.6 deg F in 1868, indicates that the temperature of the human body
> was 32 deg F (freezing point of water) in 11897.04 BC!  Clearly THAT IS
> when the Creation occurred!

By Jove, I believe the boy has got it!

Sue

> 
> ***For the sarcastically challenged:  8-) *****
> --
> Justin M. Sanders    "The science of mathematics has no more 
> Dept. of Physics       bowels of mercy than has a cast-iron dog." 
> Kansas State Univ.      --Rep. John A. Anderson of Kansas, 1882
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: a farewell to Antti
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:29:06 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Oct5.174942.5203@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi 
(Antti Siivonen) writes:

>	OK, I see. Definitions:

>		EVOLUTION

>	Evolution is the intependent development from a form of life to
>another.

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

>	This happens by cumulative selection and the survival of the
>fittest. 

"Survival of the fittest" is just a buzzphrase that supposedly
illustrates selection. There are other mechanisms to evolution
as well.

>	These "select" the best genes.   

Sorry, selection operates (mainly) between individual organisms,
not genes themsleves. Different alleles may change frequency at
different rates due to selection, but these have all passed
through the "filter" of individual selection.

>	Need any more ?

No, that about wraps it up. If any of my freshmen biology students
gave such poor answers on a quiz, I would not give them any
points on that question. You didn't even take the minimal
amount of time to crack open a bio book (or read my FAQ) and
get a suitable definition. If you were in my class here at BU,
I would fail you -- you are an idiot. I don't require my
students to believe in evolution, but I sure as hell expect
them to be able to regurgitate the definition. Don't expect any
further responses to any of your posts from me, you have now
proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you will avoid, at all
costs, any honest attempt to consider evolution on it's own merits.

In parting, I would like to heartily thank you, Mr. Siivonen,
for demonstrating the absolute intellectual bankruptcy of your
position. I am sure your postings contribute far more to the
cause of furthering evolution than all the postings of all the
evolutionists here. It is one thing to call your opponent a
spineless weasel and an idiot; it is quite another to have him
prove it on demand. See ya, Antti -- enjoy your pinheaded, chimp-
like existence.

>		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"
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Flood data
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:25:24 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

This whole thing is nonsense, of course, but:

If the flood water became the oceans, where were the fish before that?
-- 
-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
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Neo-Catastrophist Jokes
Summary: a lovely theory is often killed by a lowly detail
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:01:09 GMT

: From: brinkman@si194b.llnl.gov
: Anyway, in keeping with spirit of this endeavor, let me demonstrate how
: this relevance factor would be applied using neo-catastrophist jokes
: [.. series of excelent, relevant, jokes omitted ..]

Yes, quite good.  Let me stoop to the depths of USENET rudeness,
and indulge in a spelling flame, while still remaining relevant:

  Q: How many neo-catastrophists does it take to learn to spell words like
     beurocrats(sic), crockadile(sic), queeries(sic), and tommorrow(sic),
     along with proper names like McGowen(sic) correctly?  To
     learn to tell the difference between diplodocid and
     brachiosaurid sauropods?  To learn that "Jumbo"
     is not now, and never has been, on display at the Smithsonian?  
     How tides work?  Second law of thermodynamics?  Plate tectonics?
  A: None.  They don't fiddle with insignificant details such as facts, 
     they only worry about the Big Picture.

Oh, all right, so it isn't as funny as the examples Brinkman
came up with.  But I do feel a bit better now.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Kazmaier and standing up at 200,000 lbs:  why it can't happen
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:54:12 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Oct4.163444@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
 
>   You have said, on several occasions, that "Bigger is always better" and that
> "if it is possible, it must happen".  Are you now retracting these claims?  If
> so it would put a big dent in you insistance that if animals could get as big as
> sauropods now, they would already have done so.

It must happen in some cases, not necessarily in all cases.  Bigger is better
until you come to some point at which larger equates with disfunction.  In
some cases, that might mean blowing a niche of some sort.  In many other
cases, such as dogs, disfunction due to size means real disfunction, hip
problems etc.

-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwinism is dead !
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:41:03 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct1.125856.22754@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
|  [....]
| Sure, there are many species, including worms, flowers and amphibians that have
| longer genomes than ourselves. But does any of them have more ACTIVE GENES? No, I
| don't think so. Remember, (I have discussed this earlier a lot) more than 95% of
| the genome in many "higher" species is junk-DNA. And that doesn't count when you
| measure complexity. See my article just before this on complexity. Can anyone
| come up with species with more active genes than humans? That would be very
| interesting. If there are some, then some flowers, I think, would be a candidate.
| They seem to duplicate the whole genome every now and then. But still these "new"
| genes are inactive so they wouldn't count either, I think.

For my information:  How do people actually determine what is junk-DNA?
I have the impression from reading about fruit-fly experiments, where
severely mutated strains of flys reverted to the original form, that at 
least some of the DNA has some sort of error-correction function.  True
or not?

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins