HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:15:49 GMT

kjp@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (karl.j.pfaff..jr) writes:

> I read this group occasionally and notice that most of the questioning
> of belief is directed toward the creationist side of the table. Does
> anyone have a thought (I'm sure you do) on what the effect on this
> group would be if creation was found to be true?
> 

Well, if it had as much evidence behind it as evolution has now, then
I imagine that almost all of the t.o regulars would still be here,
defending creation theory against "evolutionist" crackpots.  People
like Colby, Meritt (Sorry, Jim, I always forget how many r's and t's
there are in your name), Hyde, Bishop, and so on and so on have the
data.  They would still have interesting and important things to say.

Let us not forget that, if creationism were to be found to be true, it
would be the dreaded scientific establishment that would be
responsible for the discovery.  Certainly, the ICR isn't turning out
anything that could challenge evolution.  So the real scenario would
be that the people who invented the neo-creation theory would be here
defending it.

But then, the idea that we would suddenly discover that the mountains
of evidence in favor of evolution actually support creation is, to say
the very least, implausible.


-- 
*Eric Shafto             * Sometimes, I think we are alone.  Sometimes I  *
*Institute for the       * think we are not.  In either case, the thought *
*    Learning Sciences   * is quite staggering.                           *
*Northwestern University *     -- R. Buckminster Fuller                   *
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: some recent studies
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:49:24 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome


	Here is a brief summary of some recent papers I found cool.

Bailey, et. al., 1992, Rejection of the "flying primate" hypothesis
by phylogenetic evidence from the e--globin gene, Science 256: 86-88

	This just came out. IMHO, a clear cut sinking of the diphyly 
of chiroptera hypothesis. In the same issue there is a paper about
the identification of some selfish genes in flour beetles and a
new case of balancing selection demonstrated (only a few cases 
have ever actually been documented, sickle cell being the most
famous). [I was actually kind of hoping bats would be diphyletic;
that would be kind of cool. Maybe I should become a c'ist so I can
just ignore reality.

Emlen and Wrege, 1992, Parent-offspring conflict and the recruitment
of helpers among bee-eaters, Nature 356:331

	The cover story a few weeks ago. Fathers in bee-eaters (a 
type of bird) harrass their sons when they are young and first
attempt to breed. This causes the son to abandon his potential
mate and help his father at his nest. The father does this becuase 
fitness benefit (*) of the son helping at the nest (more offspring) is
greater than the indirect fitness of the son reproducing by himself.

(*) to the father

Turelli and Hoffman, 1991, Rapid spread of an inherited incompatibility
factor in California _Drosophila_, Nature 353:440

	The title pretty much says it all. Another case of speciation
in the offing.

Hillis, et. al., 1992, Experimental Phylogenetics: Generation of
a known phylogeny, Science 255: 589

	The authors took a virus and kept separating populations
of it as they grew it (and zapped it with radiation to up the mutation
rate). They thus had a known phylogeny of the different virus samples.
They sequenced these and fed them into the popularly used phylogeny
construction programs and all the programs got the phylogeny right.
 
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
Subject: Re: A man shall be judged by the company he keeps
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 6 Apr 92 06:49:52 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <2714@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> 
> 
> They say a man is judged by the company he keeps, and I use the word
> "man" in the old-fashioned, non-politically-correct manner here so as to
> include Sue Bishop and possibly even her gravitationally challenged
> horse in the discussion.
> 

Gravitationall1y challenged horse, I love it!  BTW, for the somewhat
interested, the horse, Quality by name... (it fits her), will henceforth
be off any parade and other strenuous duties for the next year....  She
is currently out of state visiting a stud farm and will be coming home
pregnant in another month or two.


> Bishop and Hyde and a few others continue to claim that when history and
> theory (her ice-core interpretations) conflict, you toss the history and
> not the theory, and I have in mind to show them the company in which
> they place themselves in so doing.
> 

To the ice core data, I plan to be adding soon yet another type of evidence,
*lake bottom* cores.  Seems they are very helpful in determining types of
plants that were growing.

> If you really want to adopt the view that theory overrides history, then
> you don't need to go back to 1500 BC for a starting point;  you can
> start 50 years ago or thereabouts.
> 
> Consider the company which Bishop and Hyde keep in this theory overrides
> history game.

But, Tedster, your game is that myths over-ride evidence and science.
Even worse than what we are accused of.

Sue
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Challenge: Cold-adaptation of the woolly mammoth?
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:42:49 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Apr1.194146.20533@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber) writes...

>...I also heard a creationist say on tv that the ice for the ice ages
>came from *outer space*. I only wish I was making that up. I also wish
>I could remember the guy's name.
> 
>Rob Zuber

FWIW, a few years ago there was a (mainstream science) theory that the ice 
that originally formed the oceans came from outer space. There were even
recent pictures from satelites of extraterrestial ice falling into the 
atmosphere and melting (burning up, whatever). Turned out that the "ice" in 
the pictures was noise. Haven't heard much about _that_ theory lately...

Also, from what I hear, meteors don't heat up too much _internally_ when
they pass through the atmosphere--they land too quickly.

Put this together, mix with a little wishful thinking and ignorance and--
viola! A creationist "theory."
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Myth Of Morality
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:44:42 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <1992Apr13.151915.1546@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.100111.905@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
::I know a woman (fundamental Christian) who told me after a discussion about
::evolution and creation differences, that she thought there would be no
::reason to 'act properly, lead a moral life and be a good person' if there
::was no *proof* that God had created man.  I almost choked.  This woman
::[... descriptions deleted ...]
::total brats, potential jail bait... and on and on.  
::Oh, Yes, but she was a *good* Christian, quoted the Bible constantly, went
::to church every Sunday without fail......
:
:In your assessment of this woman's character, are you going on her
:current position, or what is in the past?
:I would like to point out that when a person turns to God and repents of
:their sins, they are forgiven completely and God does not remember their
:past transgressions any more. I would suggest that where God has forgiven
:and forgotten it is not appropriate for anyone to dredge up the past.

	One can commit any sin one wants to, because one can always be
... *FORGIVEN*. That's fun.

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Subject: Re: Bales' Scales
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 16:19:37 GMT

In article <c7acJB1w164w@PDaXcess.techbook.com> mongo@PDaXcess.techbook.com (Mongo) writes:
>(1) In some cases, feathers grow within the  area  delimited
>by a scale, that is out of a scale. "This can be observed on
>the legs of many species...."

It's about time somebody said this.  I've been reading this argument over
scales and feathers for weeks now, and have been thinking "why don't these
people look at a bird leg to see the intermediate structures?"  I thought I
remembered seeing them while examining birds for parasitic mites under a
microscope.

In my experience, most of the creationist arguments concerning biology
fail to deal with plainly visible evidence.  Such as the person who wrote in
the philosophy newsgroup that he didn't think there could be an intermediate
between birds and reptiles because "bird knees were backwards".  Obviously
he was mistaking bird ankles for knees.

Please, fellow evolutionary posters, please tie your arguments as directly to
physical evidence as you can.  That's where creationism cannot compete.
Yes, creationist leaders and authors are lying, diseased scup who ought to be
shot.  But we cannot distinguish ourselves from them by engaging in rhetoric
wars.  We can distinguish ourselves by seizing their points and refuting them
with sound logic based directly on the evidence.

Mike Huben

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble
reasoning of a single individual."  Galileo Galilei
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: More on three and four chamber hearts
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date:  9 Apr 92 21:09:51 GMT

Did you see my posting from a couple of days ago in the
developmental sequence of the four chambered heart in
humans and its relation to the anatomy of two and three
chambered hearts?

That account (Arey, 1942 Developmental Anatomy pg. 316 ff)
sayes that the development proceeds in stages roughly analogous
with the enchancements from fish to mammalian form. The heart
begins as a thichening in vascular structures in the crainial
area of the embryo, develops into a three chambered affair
with atruim, ventricle, and bulbus. A forth and smaller segment,
the sinus venoosus, which developed out of a different structure
than the rest of the heart, unites with the right side of the
atrium. As the heart developes the atrial and ventricular partitions
begin to appear at the same time that the bulbus is absorbed by
the ventricle. Out of the bulbus both the aorta and pulmonary arteries
are formed, and this is not due to a partition of the atruim. At
this point the venous circulation enteres the atrium and the
arterial leaves from what used to be the bulbus. The heart is
still three chanbered. It is the transformation of the bulbular
region and ajoining parts of the right ventricle into the
right ventricle and the simutaneous fornation of the remaining
septa that results in the four chambered heart. The partitioning
occurs after the antrial and venous circulation have become
isolated at opposites ends of the heart. So the transformation
of the polmonary function predates in the development, at least,
the greater efficiency effected by partitioning and formation of
valves.

	Now, I hasten to add that I an not making a case for
recapitulation, as Gould makes a good case that the relation
between development and phylogenetic steps is very much
more complicated than that.

Bruce Salem
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:59:33 GMT

In article <57NK02IScd9d00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>
>That't not what I'm saying. Forget time periods for the moment as
>that may be what's preventing my point from being understood. The
>evidence for punctuated equilibria is a lack of transitional fossils,
>which is exactly what we would expect with special creation. How 
>does a scientist determine the difference in the evidence between 
>a fossil that was the result of punctuated equilibria, and a 
>fossil that was the result of special creation? The physical 
>evidence (fossil record) for both will be identical. This is all
>I'm asking.

	There are a few detectable differences: new species don't
occur, as far as I understand the creationist 'model', after the 
Big Kahuna's six days of creation, while they do under PE. If new
species were observed to have appeared, like, oh, a species of
maruspial transported from Australia to Hawaii developing adaptations
to conditions in Hawaii (To pick a random example, changing their 
biochemistry to deal with toxins found in hawaiian plants, but not
in Australia) and losing the ability to breed with individuals from
the original population, then I'd say PE looked more plausible than
the 'competing' creationist 'model'.
 
	The demographics of the fossil record could be expected to 
change wrt time if new species were appearing and old ones 
disappearing.

							James Nicoll
From: 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Coffin Seminar Creation Seminar
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:10:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.162833.28517@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com>, 
  ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford) writes:
[great detailed notes from a "seminar" by Harold Coffin deleted ...]
> P.S.  The seminar actually consisted of two sessions.  These notes are
> from the first session.  I will post my notes from the second session
> as soon as I'm done compiling them.  The second session was much lower
> in content however, and should be somewhat shorter.  Again, my apologies
> for such a long post.

Hey, Dan, you can't do that.  Apologies just aren't allowed here.  In
fact, there are 2 reasons why you can't apologize.  First, there
*must* be some rule against it somewhere.  This is talk.origins
after all.  Second, even if there is no rule against it, you can only
apologize for doing something *bad*.  This just does not qualify.

So get your act together and no more apologies, ok? :-)

-- 
Paul Neubauer	00PRNEUBAUER@BSUVAX1.BITNET 	00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
                00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.UUCP       neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Interesting paper
Keywords: Mammals Taxonomy
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:41:39 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost

In article <1992Apr3.051004.27431@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin) writes:

>Is there anyone who posts here and has read this article (*) that can
>comment critically on this article?  Someone who has knowledge about
>the field. (Chris Colby?) [(*) about mammalian phylogeny]

	Sorry, not really my field.

>Is there any value in someone posting "Hey I saw this interesting
>paper in such and such non-specific journal that may be of interest
>to readers of this group."  In "such and such non-specific journal"
>I mean a publication that does not cater to a specific discipline or
>belief.  _Nature_ is an example of what I mean, also _Science_,
>_Scientific American_, _New Scientist_, _Discovery_.  (Perhaps
>_Omni_, ....)  All that I have mentioned should be available in any
>reasonable nearby library or newsstand.  (All can be subscribed to
>but some are quite steep.)

	Yes, I think that this board would benefit a lot from
discussions of evolutionary articles in the popular press and the
big science journals. For instance, did anyone read the recent
SciAm where some paleontologist was criticizing the Eve hypothesis?
Did anyone laugh as hard as I did at how poorly he understood the
science behind the inference Wilson made? Of course, the Eve 
hypothesis is now in the dustbin -- but for all the bitching and
moaning the rockhunters did (most of which stemmed from their
inability to understand the data and inferences drawn) it took a
molecular population biologist to find the flaws in the study.

	Or how about the recent Discover article that claims that
some of the Burgess Shale fossils that were originally interpreted
as phylogenetically distinct animals were only pieces of organisms
that fit into existing clades. Newer finds apparently filled in the
missing pieces. Oops.
 
	Well that's probably enough flaming of rockhunters (I wish
we could get one here on t.o.), my point is -- yes, let's discuss
biology as well as the creationist garbage on this here electronic
discussion thingy.

>George Martin
>Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
>Internet: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
>"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)

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: rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: More on three and four chamber hearts
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:34:29 GMT
Organization: SMDS Inc., Concord, MA

In article <salem.702853791@pangea.Stanford.EDU>, salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
> Did you see my posting from a couple of days ago in the
> developmental sequence of the four chambered heart in
> humans and its relation to the anatomy of two and three
> chambered hearts?

Yes, I will have meant to commend you for posting it.  [I'm practicing
tense confusion in case time travel will have been developed next week.]
Have you seen Julie's article -- the one with the diagrams?
-- 
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
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: The Holden number
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:29:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.151937.13815@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> 
  smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:
>>> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
>>> Message-ID: <2696@fedfil.UUCP>
>>> You lose power-to-weight ratio as you get bigger...  weight goes up in 
>>> proportion to volume, which is a cubed figure.  Strength and every other 
>>> measure of efficiency go up only in proportion to various squared figures.
>>> Strength in particular is proportional to cross-section of bones 
>>> and muscles.
>>> Two-thirds power of body weight is a kind of a general average of body
>>> cross-section, and for this reason is the natural scaling factor for lifting
>>> events.  
>
>The 2/3 scaling rule only applies to similar structures. In other words the
>flat-iron building can not be scaled up to the size of the Sear's tower
>but this does not prove that the Sear's tower can not be built.

I think this is one of the most concise and elegant arguments showing that 
Ted is full of shit that I have ever read.  Whould someone like to work
out the Mullins numbers of some various buildings and prove that the
Sears Tower can't exist - could be great ammunition against Ted.

>Actually Wayne explains this idea much more effectively than I can, so I
>will leave his words intact.

.. deleted ..

>Thanks for taking this off my hands Wayne. I was just getting started in 
>checking the weights of animals to see if there is a violation of the
>mythical number. Wait! did I just say that the "Holden number" is a myth!?
>That must mean it is true! :-)

<snort> <giggle>

>Again, pardon me for thinking that HTE would respond to a factual
>argument.

>Scott

C "The Empire State building is a myth too" Frog
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evil Nature
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:53:29 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford) writes:
>7.	He concluded by saying that all of the cruel and "bad" things in 
>nature, such as carnivorous creatures, parasites, viruses, pests, thorns, 
>etc. were the product of Satan.

I doubt he's a vegetarian, himself.

Leaving aside the fact that thorns are self-defence ... carnivores
are in fact wonderful things. In a certain sense, predators create
their prey: it is the existence of predators that made gazelles so
fast and graceful. Nor is death by tooth and claw unmerciful,
compared to disease and starvation.

Changing the subject slightly: civilized people underestimate
disease.  If you have to spend a few days in bed, your house stays
warm, and food delivery is a phone call away. Contrast this to the
reason why so many Amerinds died from the white man's imported
diseases. It's not because the diseases were horrible plagues.
Imagine, instead, everyone in the tribe sick at once. Hauling water,
lugging firewood, starting fires, and hunting - all hard labor, and
all not being done. Everyone in the tribe could easily die, not from
the Real Bad Sniffles, but from a few days of freezing/starvation.
In short, tribe/pack cooperation is one of the Great Secrets of
Success, a much bigger secret than penicillin.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Myth Of Morality
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:55:22 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Apr15.204159.12275@digi.lonestar.org> jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (Michael Tisdel) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.151915.1546@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>In your assessment of this woman's character, are you going on her
>>current position, or what is in the past?
>>I would like to point out that when a person turns to God and repents of
>>their sins, they are forgiven completely and God does not remember their
>>past transgressions any more. I would suggest that where God has forgiven
>>and forgotten it is not appropriate for anyone to dredge up the past.
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>--
>>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>
>Limitless mercy is the realm of Providence; we have only empiracism.
>
>If, a person claims to be forgiven and says the right litanys, but gives
>*no* evidence there by, which is better to believe:
>
>		(1) his statements
>		(2) his actions
>
>In the realm of empiricism in which t.o. resides, the only answer is 2. One
>must consider the evidence present until such time as new evidence comes
>to light.

I agree, it is (2) his actions. The bible makes this point when it says
'by their fruits you shall know them' and elsewhere, 'many say Lord, Lord
but I do not know them'. That is why I am trying to find out
a) whether the bad behaviour is past or present and b) whether the
person concerned is in fact a christian by repenting and turning to God.

> J. Michael Tisdel              | 

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889