HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Subject: Re: 160' Diplodocus...  429,895 lbs
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:27:26 GMT

In article <2885@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In evolution, if something can happen, and there are huge advantages to
>it and few if any countervailing disadvantages, then it will happen.

I wonder if you could explain what mechanism would make this happen?

>Size and strength are always an advantage UNTIL you come to some point,
>which varies with the design for any given life form, at which which 
>increased size begins to equate with disfunction.  

Hmm. In that case, why aren't house cats the size of lions? Same basic
design. Why didn't it happen?

-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Antti's word
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:06:48 GMT

jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:


>	"To make someone to do (something)"  One word, eight letters:

>	"motivate"

	"Juoksutututtaa" => To make someone to make someone to run. How do you
	translate with one word ?

>	What can I do to motivate you to start thinking, Antti?

	Perhaps if you show me a good example. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Xref: sparky talk.origins:10799 alt.atheism:16478
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:54:25 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Don't know of any comic strips, but several years ago I got a copy
of an "Archie"  comic book at Knotts Berry Farm (of all places!).
It was an evangelical version, with Archie and Jughead witnessing
to all of their friends.  

I immediately started laughing in tongues.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:41:29 GMT

I article <1992Sep3.122901.17733@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>What then do you call biology?  Please tell us the criteria by which you
>>judge.
>
>	I accept the common criteria to science. 
>
>>Show us how it can't be true.  Empty claims are all you've presented.
>
>	I think most anti-evolution books contain that one for you. 

Anti-evolution books are discussed on t.o, and they generally contain nothing
but misrepresentations of scientists' utterings, bold assertions, and strawmen.
Could you be more specific?  Which of those three things do you talk about?

There exists a saying in German, "you have to pull the worms out of his nose
one for one", meaning that you have to ask several times until you finally get
an answer...

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:29:15 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep3.122615.17553@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep2.171616.11246@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>	You seem be willing to misunderstood things and make white seem black. 
>>>	That is called lying and in this you evolutionists are good. 
>>>
>
>>A question for Andreas:
>
>>I do not know what an "evolutionist" is. Can you give me your definition?
>
>	Evolutionist is a person that believes in macroevolution (only).
>-- 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>
>	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !

Thanks, now what is "macroevolution"?

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Proof: Satan wrote this post
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:46:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.134328.202589@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
writes:
> ======================================================================
> Extract from 'Seal of God' by F.C.Payne (1974):

  This post was obviously written by satan.  Anybody with any sense can see it
just by axamining the numbers hidden throughout.

> BIBLE NUMERICS - FIRST ASPECT

  The first part has 13 (yes 13!) characters.  But that isn't the worst of it:
The entire line has twenty-four letters.  24=4*6.  Furthermore 2+4=6!  And
24=(2^3)*3, so it's prime factors are 2 and 3, 2*3=6!  So there are 3 sixes in
the first line, clearly a reference to 666.  Think this is a coincidence, then
look what happens next:

> The New Testament begins with the genealogy of Christ back to
> Abraham. It is interesting to note that this genealogy itself is
> divided into three sets of 14: Abraham to David (14), David to
> Babylon (14), Babylon to Christ (14). See Matt. 1:17. It has two
> natural sectiond, verses 1-11 and 12-17. I am but giving some
> examples from the section 1 to 11, the latter section contains
> similar phenomena which need not be enumerated. The following now is
> from the Greek, in whick the N.T. is written. The actual numerics are
> by Dr. Panin.

  There are 6 sentances in this paragraph, and the word "to" appears 6 times. 
Yet that is not all: the lines have lengths 61,64,62,64,61,62,68,69, and 13. 
Note that the only line whose length does not have a 6 in it is 13!

  Furthermore, 2 lines have length 64, that is 2^6.  And, the lines are line 2
and line 4, again 2+4=6.  Morover this gives a total of 524 characters in the
above paragraph.  5+2+4=11= the number of non-space characters in the last line.
524=(2^2)*131=2*2*131, but 2+2+1+3+1=9 which is the number of lines in the
paragraph!

  The odds of this happening by coincidence are millions to one against.  The
second paragraph goes on likewise, but the above should be more than sufficient
proof.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************

PS for those who didn't catch it :-) :-) :-)
From: pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington)
Subject: Re: Evolution board game
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:32:15 GMT

	I have a play tested version of a similar game, I designed
it for an entomology course at McGill so it deals only with insect
evolution.  If you are interested email me at

	pockling@sfu.ca

	I have the whole game on disk and would be happy to send it
to you.  It is a board game, not a computer game, but all the cards
are in wp5.0 so you can print out the whole thing and then glue
the cards to a ceral box or photocopy them onto cardstock.  I am new on 
the net and have no idea how to get a wp file onto unix but I'll try if
anyone is interested.  

	Richard Pocklington   
		THERE ARE NO RULES IN UTOPIA
example:

	--------------
	-  Wings     -  name of mutation      
	-            -
	-  Gliding   -  prerequisite mutation
	-            -
	-  Resource  -  benefits gained 
	-  Defense   -
	-------------- 

	------------------
	- Novel Predator -  name of environmental stress
	-                -
	- You must evolve-
	- a new Defense  -  effect of stress card
	-                -
	------------------


	The object of the game is to invade and survive in several 
different habitats.  You do this by playing mutation cards that
allow you type of insect to gain access to new resourses, defend
against novel predators and so on.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationism Philosophy  (was: White skin--how)?
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:43:55 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

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*!

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).

|host/parasites, herd animals, pack animals
|(don't know the correct terminology, dogs, lions, etc.), etc.

Pack will do fine, there really is no single term for what you mean.
[Though I personally tend to use 'herd' for the generic term].
add to your list of pack/herd animals: sheep, bison, many fish, dolphins, ...
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:13:38 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: White skin -- how did it develop



"Pointing to the misuse of an idea, any idea, as proof of incorrectness
of the idea is wrong".

Well, it depends on what idea you are talking about. If evolution merely
claims to explain the origin of species, and it is misused by a South
African apartheider or a Nazi or someone, agreed it doesn't disprove
evolution.

If a system that purports to explain the purpose of life, and to give
a morality for humanity to live by, a morality that extends to all spheres
of life -- social, political, economic, etc. etc., then if that idea
can be used for evil consequences, then that idea is very likely wrong.
So misuse of religion for the purpose of the Inquisition doesn't disprove
or prove anything about the existence of God, or the historicity of the
Resurrection, for example, but it does say a great deal about the validity
of that religion's system of morality. Probably the most accurate statement
would be that religious morality is not all-encompassing,as it claims to be,
because it is powerless to prevent its own misuse. Something more is always
needed (this is true of Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism and probably of
all religions).

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:44:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.110341.27321@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>	Have you read the little blue book "Life - how did it get here, by 
>	evolution or creation ?". 

A-ha!  We have discovered Antti's "scientific source."  Are you a Jehovah's
Witness, Antti, or did you get this book when they visited your door?

Many of us on t.o have read this book.  We are not impressed.

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint



-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 31 Aug 1992 09:37 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Aug31.134328.202589@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes...
>======================================================================
>Extract from 'Seal of God' by F.C.Payne (1974):
> 
>BIBLE NUMERICS - FIRST ASPECT
> 
>The New Testament begins with the genealogy of Christ back to
>Abraham. It is interesting to note that this genealogy itself is
>divided into three sets of 14: Abraham to David (14), David to
>Babylon (14), Babylon to Christ (14). See Matt. 1:17. It has two
>natural sectiond, verses 1-11 and 12-17. I am but giving some
>examples from the section 1 to 11, the latter section contains
>similar phenomena which need not be enumerated. The following now is
>from the Greek, in whick the N.T. is written. The actual numerics are
>by Dr. Panin.

Look again--there are not really three sets of 14.  The list
(Matt. 1:1-17) goes:  Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron,
Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David.  (14)
Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehosophat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham,
Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah.  (14)
Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud,
Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus.  (13, not 14)

You only get 14 if you count Jeconiah twice (at the end of the second
list and again at the beginning of the third list).

This genealogy is also incomplete.  It leaves out several generations
between Joram and Jotham (see 1 Chronicles 3:11-12) and leaves out
Jehoiakim between Josiah and Jeconiah (see 1 Chronicles 3:15-16).

All this stuff about "the" text is bogus--which manuscripts are you
referring to?  You can't get this precise about the numeric values when
there are a couple hundred thousand textual variants.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:37:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <eav0029g1fQZ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes) writes:
>
>Didn't Lowell discover Neptune?
>

No, Neptune was discovered by the Germans Galle and d'Arrest, working under
Encke.  This was the fabulous vindication of Newtonian mechanics whereby a
planet was predicted to exist by its perturbations on an already known planet
(Uranus).  Both the English John Couch Adams and the French J. J. Leverrier
made mathematical calculations showing the position of a possible eighth planet.

Lowell started the search for Pluto (again because there appeared to be another
body perturbing Neptune and Uranus).  It was actually found by his assistant,
Clyde Tombaugh, within 6 degrees of where Lowell had predicted its position.
Interestingly enough, Lowell's calculations were later shown to be wrong.
Pluto did not have enough mass to perturb Uranus and Neptune, and it's been
generally accepted that these supposed perturbations never existed.

>
>---
>Joel Hanes


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lionel's unsupported Bullshit (was: White skin)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:17:37 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <94268@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|In article <1992Aug21.121440.24522@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|>According to evolutionist thinking, whites and blacks can be
|>considered two separate species. 
|
|Bullshit, Lionel -- how about providing a reference to even a
|single evolutionary biologist who has made this claim. 

Well, let's see, there were a number of biologists early last century who did
support this position.  Hmm, wait a moment, that was mostly *before* Darwin
published "Origins"!  Could it be!?  Is it possible that it was *creationist*
biologists who supported this position?  Could Lionel have it backwards?

Quite likely.  It certainly wasn't evolutionary biologists.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: _Evolution From Space_ odds.
Keywords: space, Hoyle, chance, amino acids, probability
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:51:48 GMT


I just finished a quick reading/review of Hoyle's _Evolution From Space_.
I was interested in this book because some of the odds in the JW book
_Life_ appear to have come from this book.  Briefly, here are the
two numbers they calculate:

_Evolution From Space_, page 24.

Consider now the chance that in a random ordering of the twenty
different amino acids which make up the polypeptides it just happens
that the different kinds fall into the order appropriate to a
particular enzyme.  The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone
can hardly be greater than one part in 10^15, and the chance of
obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than
one part in 10^5.  Because the fine details of the surface shape 
can be varied we shall take the conservative line of not 'piling
on the agony' by including any further small probability for the
rest of the enzyme.  The two small probabilities we are including
are quite enough.  They have to be multiplied, when they yield a
chance of one part in 10^20 of obtaining the required enzyme in
a functioning form.

By itself, this small probability could be faced, because one
must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme,
but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have
occured in an organic soup early in the history of the Earth.
The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and
the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one
part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000 , an outrageously small
probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe
consisted of organic soup.




-- 
"All religions make me wanna throw up!"
"All religions make me sick!" - Dead Kennedys, Religious Vomit

corey@sdf.lonestar.org                       ..!uunet!convex!egsner!sdf!corey
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 3 Sep 92 08:53:37 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Sep2.171035@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>[for brevities sake I am answering all 3 of Antti's posts in one post]
>> And if this is the 
>>	criteria, languages have changed into worse. It was said in my Finnish 
>>	lessons that you can't translate "epajarjestelmallistyttamattomyydes-  
>>	saankopahan" to English. That about expressivity. 

It's not only untranslatable, it's not Finnish.
-- 
-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: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:13:55 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Aug28.175514.16858@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:

>Are you interested in what I am trying to say or what I believe?

In a word -- no. If you have a theory of creationism that you
would like to compare with the theory of evolution (or a legit
criticism of evolution), then you have come to the right newsgroup.
If not, a string of content-free posts (no matter the volume) is
not likely to convince anyone to abandon evolution in favor of
an theory to be formulated at a later date (maybe).

>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,

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: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:44:19 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Aug31.154311.18213@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>Evolution is the unifying theory of biology. The functions of
>>biological entities at all levels (populations, organisms, genes) are
>>the product of a non-random factor (e.g. natural selection) operating
>>in conjunction with random factors (such as mutation and mass extinction)
>>within a framework of historical constraint. For centuries humans have 
>>asked, "Why are we here?". A question such as that probably lies
>>outside the realm of science. However, biologists can now provide
>>an elegant answer to the question, "How did we get here?"
>
>	Bullshit. 
>
>	I know many biologists on the net and they are against evolution-      
>	nonsense. Still you talk as if all biologists were for evolution. 
>	You failed all your attempts to prove anything. Please, don't call
>	evolution biology ! It has as much common with biology as UFOs have
>	with astronomy. 

Geez, maybe you could give us their names and state what exactly their posi-
tions are with regards to evolution.

>
>	I must say myself that I agree with microevolution. 
>-- 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>
>	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:14:09 GMT
Summary: citation please?

In article <1992Sep3.122057.17144@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:

> >The simplest demonstration of the equivalent complexity of languages
> >is that children learn them at the same rate regardless of which is
> >the native tongue.

> 	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. 

Andreas: let us say that I have found claims you make in other groups to
have been, commonly, unsubstantiated.  I am totally unwilling to believe
you on this without a respectable citation that would show any variance
of learning times beyond the common variance within a given community.
Your claim strikes me as anecdotal or journalistic, like the story in
Herodotos about a pharaoh raising children in isolation to see what is
the language they speak "naturally."  Bullshit, in fact.

And the first six months is VERY important.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon			"I know of nothing -- I suspect
					not even death -- that is so fixed
mls@usl.com				in the present tense as love."
standard disclaimer					-- Jess Anderson