HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develop?
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:44:29 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Aug27.114153@IASTATE.EDU>
kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.230539.8742@cco.caltech.edu>,
>keith@cco.caltech.edu (KeithAllan Schneider) writes:
>> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>> world), then you'd get a much different answer.  The Bible is nothing more
>> than a collection of the early Jewish Mythology.  You will find many similar

The reference to me (Mark) should be taken out.  I did not make the
Mythology claims; Keith did.
-- 
Good-day!

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:50:05 GMT

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
Colby>>Her name is Lynn Margulis.

>	Thank you. And she is majoring at ...

She finished "majoring" some time ago (about 1962 at a guess, since
she took up her first lecturing appointment in 1963).

You can find out more of her biography from any good Biographical
Dictionary (for example International Who's Who, 1985/6 Publ: London, Europa).
That's the most recent one I could lay hands on conveniently, but I would
not be surprised if she was in more recent ones, too :-)

Of course, being in Who's Who is not an indicator of scientific quality,
but see below.

Colby>>Ooh, someone on the net is against evolution; I'm trembling. Where's
Colby>>their theory and the evidence for it?

>	Better ask them themselves. They are Menem and Norrblad. 

Well, asking them might be a bit difficult for the rest of us netters,
and they seem to have been remarkably quiet about their achievements
in the past few years (you know, things like publishing their work).

Let's see now. in Biological Abstracts we find:

			Works Cited

Author                        Year
                        1991        1990        1989        1987
Margulis, L               3           3           3           1
Menem (any initial)       0           0           0           0
Norrblad (any initial)    0           0           0           0

If we look at monograph holdings at the Australian National Library
we see:

Author                  Monographs held
Margulis, Lynn            7
Menem (any)               0
Norrblad (any)            0


Why is it that I'm not surprised?

Can you give us a reference to the work by Messrs. Menem & Norrblad which
you think is so important in showing the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution?
Something in a peer-reviewed journal would be most useful, of course,
but anything would be a start if it pointed to some real evidence instead of
all the huffing and puffing you've done so far.

-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:37:02 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)

In article <1992Aug31.154311.18213@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	I know many biologists on the net and they are against evolution-      

And what's your specialty?  Reindeer constipation?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:59:29 GMT

lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>> The world is very real.  It has existed in its current state
>> (post-fall) for roughly 6,000 years and will end its fallen
>> existance and be returned to perfection.

dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
>Or do you reject relativity and most of modern physics in addition to
>biology?

Good question.  The ICR rejects relativity.  From their catalogue:

	"_The Motion of Mercury's Perihelion_,
	 Harold S. Slusher and Francisco Ramirez (1984, 101 pp.)
	 Scientific refutation of one of the key evidences of
	 Einstein's theory of relativity."

Yep, creationists really are nutty.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: White skin: how did it develop ?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 28 Aug 92  00:11:00

 > From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
 > Message-ID: geaaIX200VpZMPKHUN@andrew.cmu.edu

 > I would like to remind Lionel Tun that most of the
 > 860 million people of India, 120 million people of
 > Pakistan, 110 million people of Bangladesh don't
 > belong to one of his three `main' racial groupings
 > of white, black or yellow.  Moreover, the population
 > explosion in these countries shows that these mixed
 > breeds are astonishingly fertile :-):-):-)

Huh? All those people are caucasians, the group that's traditionally called
"white". The fact that most caucasians are dark skinned was ignored by the
eurocentrists that made up the terminology. I personally hate the color names 
myself. We are all colored some shade of brown.


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Un-pa-tri-o-tic (adj):   |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| protesting when the      | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| government wants to kill | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| people.                  | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          |                                      |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Competition for Truth
Date: 1 Sep 92 08:34:54 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <n0892t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:

> > From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)

> > I got into this discussion trying to make the point that science
> > needn't be so hostile toward religion.  That was all.

>Since science never has, and never will be hostile to religion, you have no
>point to make.

It all depends upon how you look at it.  It's all a matter of competition
for niches.  When one species replaces another in a niche, it doesn't do
so by killing members of the other species.  Instead it preempts the niche,
i.e. it gets more of the available food (or other resource).  Now what
we have here is a competition for the basis of Truth.  We, homer saps,
have many bases for truth, which I will summarize in archetypes:

The Mystic:  Truth is found in an inner perceptual experience, e.g.
             enlightenment.

The Zealot:  Truth is faith; the stronger your belief, the more certain
             the truth.

The Scholar: Truth is found in scholarship, in the correct interpretation
             of the documents of the past.

The Lawyer:  Truth is a matter of law and rhetoric; it is a matter of
             social convention.

The Scientist:  Truth is external to human experience; it is established
                by observation of the universe.

The Layman:  Truth is whatever is most convenient.

These different bases are in competition -- if one is accepted as primary
then the claims of adherents of the others are diminished.

Science is "hostile" to alternative viewpoints, because it preempts them.
A creationist can honestly claim that evolution is false -- his criterion
for truth is strength of faith, and his faith in creationism is greater
than his faith in science.

In my view, much of the heat in this group comes about because we each
of us are attached emotionally to our viewpoint of the basis of truth
and are responding not only to specific arguments, but also to the 
implicit attack on our viewpoint.

This, I think, explains the heat of many people from the science side.
A creation "scientist" expounds an argument.  As a general rule these
arguments are utter rubbish, viewed merely as scientific claims.  Now
the creationist is being honest, within his lights.  Science is a
subsidiary source of truth; in any conflict between faith and science,
faith wins.  The scientist reacts negatively both because the creationists
claims are rubbish (considered as science) and because the creationist
is implicitly invalidating the scientists paradigm of truth.
-- 
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.
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: answer to John Ata's whining
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:38:10 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <94997@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.045904.20484@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
>
>>One thing I will say.  Of the two sides in
>>this argument, one side is polite and tries to honestly convey
>>what they think, while the other side, which is in the majority,
>>tends to be emotional and rude.
>
>Well, you are entitled to your opinion; but on the other hand
>one side has an actual scientific theory to defend and has
>never seen a direct attack on it. I have yet to see someone

If one party is polite and the other is rude (in any debate or argument)
then to an outside observer, the "rude party" is the one that looks
suspicious and insecure about its own theory.

I know this is a cruel assumption that people make (as the real reason could
be that the "rude party" simply is immature & has bad communication
skills, but happens to have the correct theory) but that is the way things
are.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Put up or shut up, Antti.
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:54:35 GMT

Here is a sampling of some of Antti's recent responses to requests that he 
back up his claims:

---------------BEGIN "RESPONSIVE" QUOTES FROM ANTTI--------------------
(I apologize for the lack of attributions)

>>It's not only untranslatable, it's not Finnish.
>
>       It is.

Contradiction, not argument.  Reminds me of the Monty Python "argument
sketch."

>>Could you please explain what you read between the lines that made you come
>>to that conclusion?
>
>        I read that the proof is actually 0.

Completely content-free.

>>Many "evolutionists," as you call them, do work out in the field.  Do you
>>really think evolution is only limited to fossils and museum pieces of dead
>>animals?
>
>        Shouldn't be.

Non-responsive.

>>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).

Makes no sense.  I believe in macroevolution _and_ microevolution.  Am I
not an "evolutionist?"

>>What then do you call biology?  Please tell us the criteria by which you
>>judge.
>
>        I accept the common criteria to science.

Again, non-responsive and content-free.

>>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.

But every "anti-evolution" book we've seen, we've trashed within a matter
of days.  _You_ tell us.  You claim to have come up with an answer
independently, through your "holistic" view of biology.  So tell us
about your discovery.

***Snide Aside***
  Ever wonder how Antti can call his view of biology "holistic" when
he seems to know about only one thing (birds) and not much about that?
I've always thought of evolutionary biologists as the most holistic
of biologists - tying all the fields of biology together.
***End Snide Aside***

>>  Hard to ask them when we are givenb partial names.  Can you at least narropw
>>it down to a country so there are only a few thousand phone books to search
>>through?
>
>        They are in the BBS system.

Well, they must be pretty good biologists, then, huh?  Can you list
some of their publications?  University affiliation?  "The BBS System" is
pretty big.  How about helping us out?

----------------END "RESPONSIVE QUOTES"-------------------

Antti, I haven't seen anything of substance from you yet.  Show us
you have some way to back up what you say, or stop wasting our time.
-- 
* 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    *
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Evolution board game
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 30 Aug 92  19:54:00

 > Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
 > From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
 > Message-ID: 1992Aug29.014928.2303@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu
 > Newsgroups: talk.origins

 > What do people think of making an evolution board game :-)

 > Have a playing board with a bunch of squares, you and your
 > opponent get a
 > pile of creature markers. For each creature you have a stack of
 > ability card

It's called "Quirks: the Game of UNnatural Selection!"

It's about 12 years old.

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| The best thing about     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| voting Republican is it  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| feels so good when you   | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| stop.                    | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          |                                      |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Punctuated equilibrium
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:56:03 GMT



Ken Stuckas writes:
>How about Gould's hyposthesis of punctuated equilibrium.  It make a lot of
>sense.  The reason that "missing links" are not found is because a species
>remains relatively unchanged for a long, long time and then the change in
>speciation is rapid.  Anybody know anything about this?

I think the most interesting aspect of this is the idea of certain "feedback"
mechanisms which can drive evolution rapidly in some instances.  In "Blind
Watchmaker", Dawkins cites an interesting example of a bird tailfeather which
is due to the combination of selections of males with longer tailfeathers,
and females who prefer males with longer tailfeathers.  The two factors
working together cause a positive feedback that pushes tailfeather length
until it is limited by other factors (such as the survivability of a male
with extremely long tailfeathers, etc.).  It isn't hard to see how such
mechanisms can result in dramatic short-term (relatively speaking)
modifications, depending on the environmental pressures involved.

But also note that Eldrige and Gould also point out that speciation
occurring in localized areas will give the impression of "gaps" in
areas where the speciation event did not occur, in effect, populations
migrate which causes some degree of horizontal shuffling in the
fossil record.  Gaps not due to accelerated evolution, but to the fact
that the intermediate processes occured at another locale.

Keith
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: The rise of consciousness
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:53:12 GMT
Summary: without prejudice ...
Keywords: brain,evolution,consciousness


Meaning no disrespect, I would like to suggest that you have edited
attributions in a way that makes *my* statments seem to be from
Matthew and his from me.  I am sure that is not your intent.  But
it does tend to be confusing, and should be avoided in the future.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
				and you say "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard,
mls@usl.com			a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  And
standard disclaimer		yet, Wisdom is justified by all her children.
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:55:48 GMT

vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>I was raised without religious bias and the idea of evolution
>co-existing with god is an atrocity.

I think you need to seriously analyze whether evolution implies
the nonexistence of god or not.  Science makes no statements
concerning the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.
There is nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the
existence of divine beings, nor is there anything that
precludes it.  Just because evolution contradicts a narrow,
literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't mean it contradicts
every religious belief known to humankind.

You may find that evolution and atheism go together well, but
a lot of other people find that evolution and theism go together
just as well.  Again, I don't think there are any reputable
scientists that would argue that evolution precludes the
existence of God.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:20:57 GMT

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 - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: kroberts@neumann.une.edu.au (Me)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Bigfoot
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:58:52 GMT
Reply-To: dhaley@mihi.une.edu.au


Interested if anyone has any information concerning possible evolutionary 
lineage leading to the many species of "Bigfoot". Opinions range from 
Apes, to Gigantopithecus, to Australopithecus, to Aliens. Opinions and any 
info? Please post to the net.
This is not my account, just borrowed...


Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:20:38 GMT

In article <LEET.92Sep1095317@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes in part:
|> 
|> Heller gives the following results to show that the "blood" is
|> really blood (his primary involvement in the project):
|>     1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence
|>     2. Indicative reflection spectra
|>     3. Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra
|>     4. Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence
|>     5. Positive hemochromogen tests
|>     6. Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests
|>     7. Positive detection of bile pigments
|>     8. Positive demonstration of protein
|>     9. Positive indication of albumin
|>    10. Protease tests, leaving no residue
|>    11. Positive immunological test for human albumin
|>    12. Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls
|>    13. Forensic judgement of the appearance of the various wound and
|>          blood marks.
|> All this is to blow away McCrone's contention that the red stuff is paint.
|> They explain the presence of iron oxide as part of the retting process
|> used to produce the cloth, and note that the water stains from dousing
|> the fire caused the oxide to concentrate in the stain areas.
Perhaps you should consult a recent edition of Joe Nickell's
"Inquest on the Shroud or Turin", which contains an appendix by
John F Fischer, addressing the Heller studies.

They make the following interesting points:

-Heller found vermillion pigment, just as McCrone did.  McCrone
found a lot more than Heller, because McCrone's technology was much 
more sensative.

-Many of Heller's chemical test's will show positive for both blood
and egg-based tempera paints.  Thus, Heller's results are totally 
consistent with McCrone's findings, and do not argue very strongly 
for blood vs. egg.

The conclusion is, 
"In summarizing Heller and Adler's report on their investigation of the
"blood" stains on the cloth of Turin, we find many of their tests questionable,
and we observe that tempera paint could produce similar results.  We
further note that they did not conduct a single test that was sepcific
for blood.  We therefore take strong exception to their conclusion
that "the presence of whole blood was established"".[p. 160]

I would comment that Heller's findings, far from "blowing away"
McCrone are fully consistent with McCrone's findings.  BOTH found
evidence of tempera based paint.  IMHO, Heller may have misinterpreted
his own data as showing something more than it actually does.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: winner@cua.edu
Subject: Re: Evolution board game
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:01:44 GMT

It isn't a board game, but you have SimEarth.

But even better (he says having never seen even a picture of the screen) we
are told to expect SimLife within the next couple of months.  My money is 
already set aside!!

-Jim Winner
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:46:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.191156.25820@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>
>Andy, please note that the point of this whole thread has been the origin
>of the first cell/life. As you say, reproduction is necessary for natural
>selection but is natural selection  sufficient for abiogenesis?
>
>I keep trying to discuss origin and keep getting post origin responses.
>
>Thanks for your comments.

Apologies, I just got back from vacation and missed most of this thread.

Yes, in my opinion (and abiogenesis is not my field) natural selection
is sufficient for abiogenesis.  All the "organic soup" needs is one
replicator with imperfect replication fidelity, and natural selection
will do the rest.

-- 
* 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    *