HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Subject: Sauropods: Swimmers or Stompers?   Source Suggestions Solicited.
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 05:38:12 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

Some time ago, before he rode off into the sunset reading War and Peace
(I never did like Tolstoy; Solzhenitsyn is better, IMO) Mr. Holden had a post
concerning how sauropods who were once considered to be water dwellers
are now considered to be terrestrial beings.  I thought this was interesting
and have tried to do some reading (superficial, alas) on the subject.

Now, my copy of _Dinosaurs of the Southwest_ by Ratkevich, published in
1976, in discussing Sauropoda, says:
	Once thought to have been the largest of the land vertebrates,
	species of sauropods like Brachiosaurus,...are now considered to
	have been completely, or almost completely, water animals.
	Their tremendous weights...would surely have damaged vital body
	structures had they ventured onto dry land for very long.
A nice full-page picture of a sauropod paddling merrily along follows.

I have also been looking at _Dinosaur Tracks_, by Thulborn, 1990.
On page 172 of this book, the author mentions tracks found by a researcher
named Bird ('40s) who interpreted tracks he had found as being those of a
swimming sauropod, and again a floating sauropod is shown.  Mr. Thulborn
does not mention anything about how controversial this proposal of Bird is,
and indeed gives a reference to a paper by Ishigaki.  It looks like Mr. 
Thulborn is much more concerned in this book with methodology than
interpretation.

So I looked up Ishigaki's paper in _Dinosaur Tracks and Traces_,
1989, _Footprints of Swimming Sauropods from Morocco_, where he says
in the abstract that "This supports R. T. Bird's theory of sauropod
swimming ability."  And here I thought "Wow!  This blows Mr. Holden out of
the water (as it were)!  If the dinosaur is swimming you don't need
the felt effect of gravity."

However...I was smart to scan read all the other papers in this same collection
because Lockley and Conrad, in _The Paleoenvironmental context,
Preservation and Paleoecological significance of dinosaur tracksites
in the Western USA_, discusses Ishigaki's interpretation, says that it
is probably wrong, and that
	If Ishigaki and Bird are correct, vertebrate ichnologists
	will in effect be reviving the "aquatic sauropod" hypothesis.
	Our interpretation is more in line with the terrestial
	sauropod scenario.

So, what's my point?  Well, the flip-flopping on theories does not bother me
(in fact it is a positive sign), but I am interested in tracing a little
more the complete turn-around from the late seventies to today on this
swimming sauropod silliness.  If the sage saurological superluminaries out there
could bestow some more references where I could look at how the change
in outlook came about, and indeed on current models of Sauropods, and 
like subjects, I would be very appreciative.  Books are rarer than 
dinosaur eggs in this library, so 'zine suggestions would be good too.

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Interesting paper
Keywords: Mammals Taxonomy
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:42:18 GMT

	I rarely have need to take issue with anything Chris posts,
and I welcome his expertise and wish that he continues contributing,
but I wonder who he is talking about whom he called "rockhunters".

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>	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.

	You should read what Gould has to say about this in "Wonder-
ful Life". It should be no surprise to you that fossil material
does not supply the same kind of population information that
you can get by studying living organisms in their habitat. Also,
note that the Burgess Shale fauna has a checkered history of
interpetation. The reassigning of these fossils is due to two
or three specmines re-examined sixty years on.

>	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.

	I still don't know who you mean by "rockhunters"? Do you mean
dabblers or mineral collectors or do you mean Geologists and Paleontologists?
I am one of the former (MS. 1973, Stanford) although my expertise was
more to do with computer simulation and databases. I am aware that
we earth scientists have alot to contribute toward evolutionary biology,
although it is information of a different sort based on a good deal
less information than comes from biology and other life sciences.

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:11:48 CDT

Jim Loucks writes:
: Chris Stassen writes:
: 
: >Talk.origins might have jumped on you a little
: >too hard, but what role did the group play in your interpretation
: >of Morris' remarks?
: 
: The group helped me to realize a few things. That is, I need to be 
: careful what I post, be sensitive to other beliefs even though 
: this is not reciprocated, that not everyone communicates well - 
: myself included, and that some of the ICR material may communicate
: something other then it's true intent, and this not purposely.
: It helped in other ways too, but my phone is ringing so I gotta 
: go...

I am sorry to see that the most fundemental point is still missed, Jim.

That is - there is No Creation Science.  This 'new' tactical sortie is
where the CS strategists are once again trying a worn out old attack.

It is really immaterial whether or no these scientists said what 
ICR says they said, and even more immaterial whether it was in context
or even whether they meant it.  Can't you understand that if ICR, CRS,
the Assemblies of God, PTL, 700 Club and you and Lionel ever do expose
the so-called "Evolution Conspiracy", you will simply have tumbled one
paradigm, but have _nothing_ at all with which to replace it?

I requote Lionel:
> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) <1992Mar27.132151.3106@city.cs>
>   on 27 Mar 92 13:21:51 GMT
> 
> As pointed out here before, one way to redress the balance would
> be presentation of evidence _for_ creation. I am hoping to
> address this area in due course.

When Lionel?  When Jim?  When ICR?  When Morris?  Supporting your
position by attacking your opponent is intellectual dishonesty.
This current tactic is yet another attack.  QED.

There is, at present, no evidence that supports Creation Science!

How can you even begin to hold your head up with pride when you
know that you are engaging in such vile and immoral slander.
The very idea that immanent scientists, placed so highly in
this _secret conspiracy_ you all have concocted, and able to
keep their secrets _behind closed doors_ so effectively, are
going to spill it all for some strange guy with a tape recorder!

  "Would you tell me all about your secret conspiracy?"
  "But of course!  Crumpet with your tea?"

How can you propose such a ludicrous theory without blanketing
the page with smileys?

Sometimes I wish that you could live in a world where your wish 
became true.  Where the government and the religious body were 
one, where acceptable knowledge was dictated by the government,
and there is an inquisition for convincing unbelievers.
It is really sad that this world's history is not full of enough
excess of religious power to convince you that your God does not
take a personal interest in such matters, and is more than willing
to let men exact whatever atrocities their hearts desire, and to do
it all in His Name.  I really wish you could be there, but I have
no desire to be there with you.

Rob 'lost his reservation' Derrick
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Ignoring Facts
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:28:24 GMT

In article <2723@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>Again, as is commonly known, the planet Venus was the primary focus of all
>American religion and ceremony at the time of the arrival of the Europeans.
>Their religion was still the old Ishtar/Baal worship, i.e. Venus worship,
>which had existed in the near east during biblical times.
Several points:
1) Ishtar is Babylonian. Baal is Canaanite.
2) Ishtar is a woman--the Goddess of Love/Queen of Heaven.
   Baal is a man.
   The analog of Baal in Babylon is Marduk.
3) Baal is a storm god, and would not have been likely to have been
associated with Venus.

So what the HELL is Ishtar/Baal worship?
-Ekr
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James)
Subject: Re: Pictures of a sea of lava, and where they may be found
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:43:04 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:


>From: Benjamin T Dehner, Iowa State University, Ames IA
>>via anonymous FTP at ames.arc.nasa.gov (I forget where; ask/look for FAQ on
>features;  as lying goes, putting words in other peoples mouthes is a 
>particularly pernicious variety.
>magazine which is readily available.  Quotes include "... one of the most
>striking characteristics of the Venusian topography is its distinct shortage
>of craters..."

>That's because the lava flows cover them up.  The article goes on to say:
>"The planet's pristine face does not mean that it somehow dodged such bom-
>bardment;  rather, it implies that something came along to erase the traces
>left behind.  That something, Magellan scientists now think, was probably
>lava.  At various points in the planets history, large localized valcanoes
>may have spilled lava over hundreds of thousands of miles, in effect
>resurfacing much of the planet."

[] 

>I mean, these suckers have been looking at these pictures of a lava-
>covered planet for two years now and they're just starting to figure out
>that maybe ....

>Ted Holden
 
 OK.  Well I expected someone to jump in with this before now, but
I'll trot it out:
     There are PICTURES of the surface of Venus.
Two probes from the (then) Soviet Union snapped some neat photos a few
years back while they sat on the surface.  Of course they burned up 
pretty quickly.  But I remember the surface was most un-lava-like.
Pretty solid really. 
As I recall they also took temperature and pressure data, so Venusian
surface conditions have been investigated closely.
This seems to conflict with your ideas.

 Michael James   mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
                      Procrastinating on a sig...
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: biologic diversity since the Cambrian
Keywords: scientific creationism
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:58:47 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <s700tINNcu2@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> jsanders@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:

>Again simple numbers of species, classes, phyla, whatever will
>answer the question "Is life more diverse now than in the Cambrian",

	Um, one of the points I tried to make in my previous post is
that this is not the case. This is because taxonomic units are just
human abstractions, not a real unit of anything. Is an order of
arthropods with five families as diverse as an order of ascomycetes
(a phylum of fungus) with five families? I would doubt it. In order
to answer the question, some clear cut definition of diversity
would need to be put forward. And, since diversity would necessarily
to be a function of the complexity of the various individuals within
a taxa -- complexity would also need a clear definition.

>but it probably will not answer the question "Is life more complex now
>than in the Cambrian".

	Maybe someone has worked this out and I'm just ignorant of
that field, but I can't for the life of me understand how you would
measure (or define) complexity. I'll ask an easy question. Let's
say you have a human being and a bacterium (E. Coli); which is
more complex and why? What objective criteria can you establish to
show that humans are more complex than bacteria (or vice versa if
you wish 8-)? I get the feeling that measuring complexity will
suffer from the same problems as measuring IQ -- trying to assign
a scalar value to a vector property. For every amazing thing a
human can do that an E. Coli can't (compose a symphony, for instance)
I'll bet there's an amazing thing an E. Coli can do (O.K., maybe I'm
strectching it a bit, but you get the picture).

>-- 
>Justin M. Sanders         "I can trace my ancestry back to a primordial,
>Dept. of Physics            protoplasmal, atomic globule."
>Kansas State Univ.           --Poo-Bah, in _The_Mikado_, Act I

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: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org (Dr Pepper)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: 24 Karat Fundamentalism
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 92 22:09:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:103/241 - GG Tech, Westminster CA

 > From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
 > Message-ID: 1992Apr3.145536.23772@city.cs

 > In article <1992Apr2.112757@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU
 > (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
 >>   I have personally read the work of people who have observed evolution
 >>happening[1].  I admit you're right that no one has viewed an act of
 >>special creation.

 > Ahem. As an example of an _isolated_ act of special creation, would you
 > allow a person with a missing leg or withered being miraculously healed,
 > or eyesight restored to a person with a missing optic nerve? If so, I
 > have personally read the work of people who have observed an act of
 > special creation.

Well that would certainly prove that *something* outside of currently described phenomena exists. But special creation would only be one possible explanation.

However. I too, have read such things and even heard them described on evangelical television. Strangely enough, this never seems to happen when anyone trying to get documentary evidence is around. I'd love to believe, but i guess i'm just too carnal and materialistic to accept such claims on mere say so.

10                    2
       DR PEPPER
                      4

--  

Dr Pepper
Internet: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:32:47 GMT

scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
>In article <351C02Wfc9LU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim L
>oucks) writes:
>     [...]
>|> If Sunderland's claims are true, we'll see in the original transcripts
>|> that some evolutionary scientists speak differently behind closed doors.
> 
>    Has anyone ever read the treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the
>Donation of Constantine?  ("De falso credita et ementita constantini 
>donatione declamatio", English translation, Yale University Press, 
>1922.)  It is an interesting example of critical thinking, and it 
>came to mind when I read this.

The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" might be an interesting
comparison as well.
-- 
He's about as sharp as a bowling ball, but twice as smart.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:04:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.023553.7305@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>,
akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
> 
> About Hannibal crossing the Alps with elephants, Ted Holden wrote:
> 
> >> You read lots of history, don't you, Sue?  All but a small handful of
those
> >> elephants died due to the hardwhips of being hauled and winched through
> >> those mountains, and that handful died shortly thereafter.  Hannibal's 
> >> strengths were his Spainish and Numidean cavalry groups;  the elephants
were
> >> a total non-factor.
> 
> and Sue Bishop replied:
> 
> >That's right, I'd forgotten how many elephants died during the trip.  BTW,
> >a modern trek was done over the same route by elephants, not too very long
> >ago.  I seem to remember that they finally just trucked them over.
> 
> Where are you folks getting your information from?  It can't be from
> Livy, who described Hannibal's trip and said nothing about any
> elephants dying.  In fact, Livy describes their participation in the
> battle of Trebia in 218 B.C., after Hannibal arrived in Italy.  Most of
> the elephants apparently died in that battle or soon afterwards; some
> of the remaining ones died in the winter of that year in the Appenines;
> one survived into 217 B.C.
> 
> Of course, Livy wasn't there at the time; but neither were Ted Holden
> or Sue Bishop.  So what's the source for the statement that most of
> the elephants died in the trip across the Alps?

  I know I am just going on my memory of various History courses, but I do
remember them saying that only two elephants made it over the alps.  Of those,
only one actually made it to Rome, but that was enough to demoralize the enemy.
(It was probably the biggest living thing any of them had seen by a factor of
2)

  I apologise if this is wrong (my memory tends to be spotty) but I have a
pretty clear recolection of my history teacher saying this.

                                          -Kurt
From: jsanders@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Request to Julie (was Re: Developing ideas on hearts.)
Date: 17 Apr 1992 00:20:06 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

In article <1992Apr16.234410.1529@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bk186@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
[hundreds of lines deleted on the ontogeny of mammalian and reptilian
  hearts]

>Well, this story is getting old and I'm starting to get bored.  I
>think I'll let you have the last word so I can move onto another topic
>which has caught my eye to see what stories surface there.  It's been
>fun!  
>     

Julie,

     As someone who read all the 3 to 4 chambered heart exchange, let
me make a request/suggestion.  Whatever the new topic is that has
caught your eye, please focus your skepticism on something for which
some data exists.  Bruce Salem tried valiantly to defend a case which
he himself said was weak because we don't have fossil hearts to 
examine.  If you wish to examine a transition from reptiles to mammals
or from reptiles to birds (as in the previous Archaeopteryx thread), 
you've got to recognize that the vast majority of hard data bearing
on the transition is skeletal.  It is the skeletal data that 
evolutionists have the most confidence in, and that's the only place
the skeptic will really be able to shake our confidence.

    You've taken some heat for being "merely skeptical", and I can
fully understand the frustration that Mr. Salem and others feel--
it is difficult to distinguish between extreme skepticism and pig-
headedness sometimes.  You have derided the usefulness of "just so"
stories, but they ARE useful.  In Kuhnian terms,  the paradigm tells
scientists where to look for problems and for confirmation.  All you
seem to see is the story,  but you are overlooking the testing that
goes on after the hypothesis is made.  Sometimes, as in the case
of the heart, the evidence is circumstantial and can ONLY BE circumstantial.
But still the "just so" story gives us SOMETHING to test.

    Looking forward to what will probably be an intriguing approach
to whatever your next topic is.

-- 
Justin M. Sanders         "I can trace my ancestry back to a primordial,
Dept. of Physics            protoplasmal, atomic globule."
Kansas State Univ.           --Poo-Bah, in _The_Mikado_, Act I
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Rice)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: The Myth Of Morality
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:55:56 PDT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc. (Public access BBS)

Tag: Michael I Bushnell
 
MIB> "Morality consists in applying the absolutes of love found
MIB> in the Summary of the Law given by Jesus to particular cases
MIB> and situations."
 
You mean =ONE FORM= of morality. Humanity had moral codes of
love, kindness, and compassion long before the period jesus
is said to have existed. I have a very high, stringent, and
unbending moral code which I follow, that did not require
occultism based on jesus, or gods, or any mysticism; it is
based on my firm belief that I have an obligation to society
to conduct myself morally and ethically. No gods. Few jesus
followers could match the commitment to morality and ethics
I have chosen to follow.
 
My observation being: morality does not stem from your occultism,
nor occultism in general--- I am free from god nonsense, and I
am moral.
 
MIB> "As human society changes, the morally optimal way of making
MIB> that application will change as well. In other words, God's
MIB> nature is eternal, but morality consists in its application
MIB> to human situations, which are embedded in ever-changing
MIB> social contexts. As a result, the application of the eternal
MIB> commandments of love is continually changing in nature. Only
MIB> at the Day of the Lord will human society reach its epitome,
MIB> and then, only by the direct intervention of God. Only then
MIB> will the demands of morality become static."
 
Sounds like the perfect dictatorship (George Bush and Stalin would
be proud). People define a society's morals--- and people are not
static. Morals =MUST= remain dynamic to meet ever changing obsticles
and challenges a thriving, growing, living society must face.
 
Thank you.
 
> Michael Innis Bushnell mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu

--  

David Rice
Internet: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org