HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 5 Sep 92 23:01:12 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1010@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <2890@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>|Nonetheless, for a creature such as a supersaur or ultrasaur to have held 
>|its head out horizontally would have required musculature it didn't begin
>|to have.  Were such a creature to have 30,000 lbs of mass from the shoulders
>|outwards, and this seems conservative since it weighed 360,000 lbs, and a
>|center of gravity 15' out from the shoulders for this 30,000 neck, which
>|also seems conservative, then it was looking at 450,000 ft. lbs. of torque.

>A 15 ton neck on a 60 ton dinosaur!?!  Get real!
>If a diplodocid's thin neck weighed *half* of that I would be surprised.

Er, your numbers don't match.  Ted is claiming a 15 ton neck on a 180 ton
dinosaur.  If I recall correctly supersaur and ultrasaur are brachiosaurids
(spelling?); 180 tons for the biggest of the big is plausible.  15 tons
"from the shoulders outward" is on the high side but not unreasonable
[2-4 tons for the neck itself, the rest is body structure.]  Give him
75,000 foot/lbs for his ultrasaur.

>In addition, much of the support would come from the bones, not the muscles.
>Sauropod neck vertebrae (and back vertebrae) were *strongly* interlocking,
>so that the weight could be transmitted through the body to the feet without
>muscular intervention.

Permit me to be somewhat skeptical here.  I grant that the vertebrae were
strongly interlocked, and that forces can be redistributed.  None the less
the horizontal neck implies large shear forces that bone does not handle
well.  Think tendons.  Tendons are good for handling tension loading --
much more so than either bones or muscle.

An interesting point is that the sauropods may well have had different
neck configurations but may not have been able to move them much.  An
upright neck is relatively stable -- the center of gravity of the neck
is close to body and the stress loading on the vertebrae is compressive.
A horizontal neck is stable -- the torque is taken up by tension on the
tendons and compression on the vertebrae.  The transition from horizontal
to vertical is the one that requires the big active force [muscle power.]
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 22:44:32 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

This article didn't seem to make it out the first time.  my apologies if you
see it twice.

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

I dug up a reference on Antti's example of _Loxia_:

Knox, Alan G., "The sympatric breeding of Common and Scottish Crossbills
_Loxia_curvirostra_ and _L._scotia_ and the evolution of crossbills,"
_The_Ibis_, Vol 132, p. 454-466, July 1990.

	ABSTRACT:

Within the stongly polytypic Red Crossbill _L._curvirostra_ there are many
reports of two or more 'subspecies' nesting sympatrically, without
interbreeding.  This 13-year study examines one such case in, Scotland, where
an endemic form is resident and another was thought to occur after
irruptions from its main range in continental Europe.  Both forms were
present in the study area every year; sympatric breeding was proved in 9
years and probably occured in the other four.  There was no suggestion of
interbreeding and the Scottish form should be treated as a seperate species,
_L._scotia_, the Scottish Crossbill.  This is the only endemic species of
bird in Britain an one of very few European endemics.

The evolution of crossbills in Europe is discussed in the light of recent
palynological evidence and the taxonomic status of the Parrot Crossbill _L._
_pytyopsittacus_ is re-examined.
	 
	 END ABSTRACT

The author of this article seems to disagree with Antti's claim about
their being subspecies.  His study comes to the conclusion that all
three are seperate species.

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:29:33 GMT

In article <m8snn6l.mvp@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>It's a comic strip.  Get a clue and a sense of humor.

Propaganda is propaganda, even in comic strips.  The propaganda was not meant
as humor.

>>    (V) Humans and dinosaurs are contemporanious. (B.S.! Thanks to those on
>>talk.origins that pointed this out).
>You needed talk.origins to point that out to you?  Hmmmmmmm.

It's the difference between a comic strip where the premise is a flat earth,
and a comic strip where not only is there a flat earth, but the writer likes
to quote lots of bogus proofs about flat earths, support flat earth laws, want
flat earth education in the schools, and in general writes his comic strip
because he really believes the earth is flat.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist misrepresentation of Colin Patterson
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:31:17 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <8SEP199220132724@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>Can anybody tell me if the following quote, which was attributed by
>John Mulder to Colin Patterson, is to be found in the works of
>creationist Luther Sunderland, and if so, where?
>
>   Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing,
>   any one thing that is true?
>
>Is this a question Sunderland asked Patterson, or is this a rhetorical
>question Patterson used in a lecture which Sunderland taped?

The following doesn't answer the question, but maybe it will help.
In the creationist book _Darwin On Trial_ author Phillip Johnson
writes (p. 9-10, 157) about

   "a remarkable lecture given by Colin Patterson at the American
   Museum of Natural History in 1981. . .  Patterson asked his
   audience of experts a question which reflected his own doubts
   about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge
   about evolution:

      Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one
      thing. . . that is true?. . .

   Colin Patterson's 1981 lecture was not published, but I have
   reviewed a transcript and Patterson restated his position, which I
   would label `evolutionary nihilism,' in an interview with the
   journalist Tom Bethell."


Alan Feuerbacher
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Species or just subspecies ? (Was Re: macroevolution)
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:31:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep10.075749.14065@funet.fi>, ks54079@cs.tut.fi (Saarinen
Kimmo Samuli) wrote:
> 
> Yes, it seems to me, that Antti has spread his wings, abandoned
> our national newsgroup and started to conquer this international
> newsgroup instead. Anyway, the style and the "facts" are the same,
> so be patient, it's very hard to get any _reasonable_ argumentation
> out of him. Instead of reasoning and poundering different aspects
> of the issue he smash his statement (with an issuficient amount
> of argumentation, or totally without it) and produces several 
> this kind of remarks, thus the number of the articles are getting
> high. And he usually reacts on every reply to these remarks, so
> you can imagine the growing rate of the articles ...

I'm afraid he's one of the biggest article generators (I guess
I'm one of the biggest answering generators concerning his
insane remarks and direct lies concerning the state of Finland).

Sigh, if there was a way to teach him to think, please send 
any possible ideas to him so we could stop the waste of bandwidth.

I think I will stop answering anything from this man, unless
it's so lunatic it stinks.

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: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Louck's transcripts (not again!)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:19:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.203046.14444@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber) writes:
>In article <01GQ03107d9000@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>>The quote sounds familiar. I'll check the transcripts and a book by
>>Sunderland.
>
>	Hey Jim. Are you still claiming that Niles Eldridge says the horse
>series is a 'joke'?

Well, the horse series portrayed as a ladder *is* a joke, but the joke's
on those who hold that cartoon view of evolution.  As usual, Gould puts it
best:  "What is 'life's little joke' of my title?  Simply this.  The model
of the ladder is much more than merely wrong.  It never could provide the
the promised illustration of evolution progressive and triumphant -- for
_it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages_."  [Gould's emphasis]
He adds that a bush can be linearized only if it maintains a single surviving
twig that can be placed at the summit of a ladder and that this could not
be applied to mammalian succeses, e.g., rodents, bats, and antelopes.  He
concludes: "I need hardly remind everybody that at least one other mammalian
lineage, preeminent among all in our attention and concern, shares with
horses the sorry state of reduction from a formerly luxuriant bush to a
single surviving twig -- the very property of extreme tenuousness that
permits us to build a ladder reaching only to the heart of our own folly
and hubris."

"Life's Little Joke" was published in the April 1987 issue of _Natural
History_ (pages 16-25) and collected in _Bully for Brontosaurus_.

-- Herb Huston
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: questions for super-biologist Antti
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:08:47 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep9.153545.12655@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> >If you are really a biologist (yeah right) who has studied evolution
> >(uh huh, sure) and has found big flaws in it, you should at least
> >be able to answer these basic questions. The first one is fresh-
> >man level biology, the rest are somewhat harder. But, you have
> >claimed to be a better biologist than Darwin. I claim to be a
> >lesser biologist than Darwin, and I can easily answer them --
> >so you should have no trouble. Personally, I think you don't
> >have even the slightest grasp of evolutionary biology and your
> >objections stem solely from adherance to anti-scientific religious 
> >dogma.
> 
> 	I can say that this is the way Marxists pose questions - if you use 
> 	false questions, you can't get right answers, if you use evolutionary
> 	questions you get evolutionary answers. How could I give you right 
> 	answers if you use wrong therminology ? I consider your attitude as
> 	the "propaganda of the class-enemy" . Can I ask you, how you explain
> 	Social Darwinism and the zero-probabilities of useful mutations ?
> 	"They don't exist" is a wrong answer. I found your questions 
> 	irrelevant. 

Did anyone expect to get real, scientific explanations from Antti
concerning the biological issues, naaaah... Forget that!

Antti, we are not impressed. Chris asked pretty simple questions
for a biology trained person, and you can't answer them.

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: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Request for transitional fossil info.
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:34:18 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1aRK03ms7dVH00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>.... What I would like to read more 
>about is transitional fossils and why certain fossils are considered
>transitional. Also, what is the definition of a transitional fossil?
>Is there a difference between transitional and intermediate fossils?
>
>So far, the books that have been recommended haven't really answered 
>these questions for me and I'm really trying to find as much detail as
>possible in this matter. Please email or post any recommended reading 
>you may have on the subject of transitional fossils. The more details
>the better.
>
>-- 
>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 

The following bibliography has been helpful to me:

   Ashley Montagu, ed., _Science and Creationism_,
   Oxford University Press, New York, 1984,
   pp. 51-2, 123-4, 247, 256-65

   Laurie R. Godfrey, _Scientists Confront Creationism_,
   W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983.
   pp. 198-9, 177-8, 205

   D.  R.  Selkirk  and F. J. Burrows, editors, _Confronting
   Creationism: Defending Darwin_, New  South  Wales
   University Press, Kensington NSW Australia, 1988.
   pp. 80-92, 

   James A. Hopson, "The Mammal-like Reptiles:  A  Study
   of   Transitional  Fossils,"  _The  American  Biology
   Teacher_, vol. 49, no. 1, January, 1987.
   p. 25 

   G. Ledyard Stebbins, _Processes of  Organic  Evolution_,
   Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1971.
   pp. 142-8

   Steven  M. Stanley, _The New Evolutionary Timetable_, 1981.
   pp. 95, 174-6

   Antony J. Sutcliffe, _On The Track Of Ice Age  Mammals_,
   Harvard  University  Press,  Cambridge,  Massachusetts, 1985.
   pp. 163

   Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersal, _The Myths of Human Evo-
   lution_, Columbia University Press, New York, 1982.
   pp. 45-8, 57

   Robert  T. Bakker, _The Dinosaur Heresies_, William Morrow
   and  Company,  Inc.,  New  York, 1986.
   pp. 301-5, 311-16, 

   John  H.  Ostrom,  "_Archaeopteryx_  and  the  origin of
   birds," _Biological Journal of the Linnean Society_, vol.
   8, No. 2, June, 1976.
   p. 93

   Peter Wellnhofer, "Archaeopteryx," _Scientific American_,
   New York, May, 1990.
   p. 70

   David  B. Wilson, _Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It?_,
   The Iowa State Press, Ames, Iowa, 1983.
   p. 118

Alan Feuerbacher          |  As long as you think you have the truth, you
Tektronix, Inc.           |  will feel no need to pursue knowledge and
PO Box 500, MS 47-623     |  understanding.
Beaverton, OR  97077      |  There is often a difference between good
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com   |  sound reason and reasons that sound good.
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:43:08 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Sep11.012715.28286@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>Lionel -- this kind of thing is called _non sequitur_, and it tends to
>make its users look like clowns (and only rarely like clever and enter-
>taining ones.)

I don't do much gardening but I did once use a pair to cut the
grass before we had a lawnmower. Anyway I don't have any now so
am I strictly _non sequitur_?

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: an eternity with Lionel -- egad
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 8 Sep 92 06:25:59 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep8.011339.29133@morrow.stanford.edu>, salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
> 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
> 
> 

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.

Sue
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:01:53 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

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?

> 	No, I only say that Chris' results don't necessarily prove evolution and
> 	now I  refer to this L. argentatus -question. 

  Then it would be especially in your interest to provide the above requested
information.

>>Do you have any friggen idea how large the Internet is???  If they are here
>>on the internet, care to give us their full names along with mail addresses?
> 
> 	Menem is changing site now, so he is off for a while and I don't now
> 	his new address yet.   

  You have neglected to mention the other.  Just because you can't give the
address of one does not mean you should not give any address.

> 	I can explain the L. argentatus-case if you haven't heard of it yet. 
> 	You could also first see what the others have written not to make 
> 	the same questions. 

  In english we have the expression "The proof is in the pudding."  It means
that anybody can talk about doing something, but it is hard to be convinced
unless they actually do it.  Remarkably apt in this situation.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:03:54 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep3.121646.17022@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 	How do you say: "To make some one to do (something)" in one word ? In 
> 	Finnish it is "Teetatyttaa".  
> >  Can you translate "sharp as a bowling ball" into Finnish while maintaining the
> >propper expressiveness?  Does that prove Finnish isn't as expressive as
> >English?
> 	
> 	Terava kuin keilailupallo. (Dots above a:s in the first word, we have  
> 	more letters, you know).

Sigh, this reminds me of UNIX wars, or Pascal/C wars. I maintain
that the eye is in the beholder, we could express whatever with
clever use of any language, even Finnish.

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: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Request for book reviews
Date: 11 Sep 1992 16:13:19 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <6914@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
>
>Does anyone know of any reviews of the following books?
>
>Attacking evolution:
>
>    Robert  Shapiro,  _Origins:  A Skeptic's Guide to the
>    Creation of Life on Earth_, Bantam Books,  New  York,
>    1987.

I've read this book, and it doesn't attack evolution.  The author doesn't
question the validity of evolution, and gives short shrift to creation
myths of several cultures and Hoyle (which are included for comparison.)

What he does present is an excellent review of the various competing
theories of abiogenesis.  He strips them bare of assertions, and reduces
them to what is known and what yet needs to be discovered for one of them
to be firmly accepted.

I strongly recommend this book to people interested in abiogenesis.


Mike Huben


"Nothing is more humbling than to look with a strong magnifying glass
at an insect so tiny that the naked eye sees only the barest speck
and to discover that nevertheless it is sculpted and articulated and
striped with the same care and imagination as a zebra.  Apparently it
does not occur to nature whether or not a creature is within our range
of vision, and the suspicion arises that even the zebra was not designed
for our benefit." -- Rudolf Arnheim
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antti Siivonen's evidence
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:14:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep4.111245.27786@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
> 
> 	I've never written like that. 

Could you concatenate this to the first listing as well?

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.