HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Subject: Re: Pre-emptive anti-creationist clause.
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:23:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.225203.10515@centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>I ran into a fascinating book today, titled "Larvae and Evolution:
>Toward a New Zoology" by Donald Williamson.  The first paragraph on
>the first page contains the following:
.
.
.
>
>The theory he proposes is really new: that most phylogenetic discrepancies
>in invertebrate larval forms (which have previously been reluctantly
>presumed to be due to convergence) have been due to hybridization,
>sometimes even between phyla.  He postulates that about 25 such
>hybridization events would be sufficient to account for all the known
>problems.
>
>[Note to folks without much invertebrate biology background: strange
>overlaps of larval forms of the many phyla have long been inadequately
>explained: distantly related groups sometimes have almost identical
>larval morphologies.]
>
>The frontspiece shows his most astounding evidence: a larva produced in his
>laboratory that is a hybrid between a sea-squirt (phylum Chordata) and a
>sea-urchin (phylum Echinodermata) that shows intermediate characters of both.
>He has produced many such hybrids very simply by mixing eggs and sperm,
>then rearing.
>
A few years ago, I saw on some nature/science TV program, a discussion of
this theory with application to starfish.  They said that larval starfish
were like a larval jellyfish with a starfish inside, and the starfish
eventually grew to replace all the "jellyfish" parts.  They also suggested
that there was ample opportunity for this type of genetic mixing to have
occurred, considering the billions of eggs and sperm of all kinds floating
around in the oceans.

BTW, what did the hybrid sea-squirt/-urchin grow up into?  A porcupine
fish? (Chordate with spines :) :) :)
-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:46:17 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep7.162127.4115@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
|	It's a brief, comprehensive introduction to the evolutionary 
|	questions in an easy-to-read-form.

Read "it's a brief, sparse introduction to trumped-up, so-called
evolutionary questions aimed at a scientifically illiterate audience".

|As such it doesn't go too far to
|	individual cases, and thus successfully maintains the view to evolution
|	in entirety. 

And it tends to ignore significant details when they do not fit with the
agenda of the writer(s) ...

|	How about that ?

It shows how little you understand.   The pamphlet makes no meaningful
statements about evolutionary theory.  It presents a silly, bonehead
caricature of the science and then rips *that* to shreds.

Big deal!  This is called a straw-man argument - it proves nothing.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 8 Sep 92 04:02:40 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

Before people jump on him, I want to point out that Ted is making
valid points.

In article <2895@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>> I've been to the Zoo Ted. Giraffes are able to bend their heads down.
>> I've seen it! Wow!  

>Not for any length of time.  Scientists are now claiming that sauropods
>carried their necks low, nearly horizontal, ALL the time, because they
>could not have gotten blood to their brains otherwise.

To be fair, some scientists argue for horizontal necks, because of the
blood pressure problems.  Others disagree.

>Try holding a 20 lb weight horizontally out from your body for thirty
>seconds, either from the shoulder or from the hip with elbow bent, it 
>doesn't matter.  Picture holding that weight out like that for the rest
>of your life.

Now this is a tad misleading.  Try the following experiment instead.
Take an 8 foot 2x4 and center it on your shoulder so that you have four
feet hanging out in front of you and four feet hanging out in back.
Piece of cake, right?  After you get bored with standing there with a
2x4 on your shoulder move one end of the 2x4 to your shoulder, and support
the 2x4 with your arm.  How long can you keep it up?  Not too long.

Apropos of all this does anyone happen to have typical numbers for how
tension loading tendons can take?
-- 
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: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:04:30 GMT

In article <6877@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
>4. Authors are quoted out of context, often making them appear to say what the
>   context clearly shows they did not.
Don't forget 4.a:
    Quotes are actually re-written, so as to change their intended meaning.

I actually ran across this recently when someone posted (on a BBS) a quote
from astronomer Robert Jastrow, and when I checked the original, it was
quite different.  I wish I could find the creationist tract the poster
got it from.
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: questions for super-biologist Antti
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:02:18 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <95642@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|
|Earth to Antti, I asked you specific questions using well defined
|terms -- you respond by calling me a Marxist. Who's hiding?
|
You did indeed.  Those questions could have been taken right off of
a population genetics final exam.  (Hmm, are you by any chance *teaching*
such a course at B.U.)?

Extremely precise.  I knew *exactly* what I needed to look up in order to
answer them correctly.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: North Carelia (was Re: macroevolution)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:53:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.113205.21129@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>You forgot that nobody really claimed NC before 1323, even if it
>>was part of Sweden since early 1000. 
>
>	No, actually it was part of Novgorod, but not ruled effectively. 
>	Novgorod was only spreading their religion to Carelia, and that was
>	the reason, why the pope commanded Swedes to do crusades to Tawasthia
>	(and then to south Carelia). 
>
>>So your historical table shows clearly that NC is a Russian colony.
>>If we want to believe that, then you really have a low opinion
>>of the level of intelligence of us reading this group.
>
>	Province actually. Proof, Kent, we want proof. Prove my chart false.

No, Antti, _we_ couldn't care less.  Unless you can show that the political
history of North Carelia, Finland, Sweden, Russia, et cetera is relevant
to the origins of biological diversity, please switch your argument
to talk.politics.North.Carelia.

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Naked Mole Rats
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 8 Sep 92 06:22:58 EST
Organization: Wright State University 


The Cincinnati zoo, along with having a very lovely bonobo family on display,
also has a colony of naked mole rats.  I spent quite a lot of time in front
of their exhibit at the end of July.

Sue
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:56:13 GMT



duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>If you follow the original thread you'll understand that I don't
>think either side has such direct evidence that they can produce.
>Because of this I don't believe that either side can draw an
>"inescapable conclusion".

*sigh*, By the same logic, it is clear you are also unable to draw the
conclusion that the Earth is orbiting throughout our solar system,
approximately around the sun.  Do you realize just how much this makes
you look like the uneducated savage who attributes all effects of nature to
supernatural forces?  How much a mystery it must seem to you how humans are
able to harness such supernatural forces that can illuminate your home at
night.  Humans that are able to strike people dead at a distance with the
use of a magic device, and make carriages go with the use of a magic fluid.
Perhaps it is all the Devil's magic.

I guess the experts are right, the educational system in this country
is so bad, that we are about to slip back into Medieval times.  You
know, before the age of enlightenment?  I guess the Gulf War is just
the preliminary to the New Crusades.  Or Armageddon.

Plain and simple, the evidence of evolution is so all-pervasive through
geology, biology, zoology, and to some degree most of the other sciences
that if it did not occur, God sure went one hell of a long way out of his
way to make it all look just exactly as if it did.  Clearly, even the ICR
must now realize this, as judging from the ICR Museum report, they have
stepped back from the idea that there is "evidence of creation" to claiming
that God in creating the world "fully operational" has created artificial
evidences of age (trees with rings, Adam as an adult, etc.).  Which oh-by-
the-way indicates he must have also created fossils of animals which were
never alive, geologic strata which looked exactly like they were laid down
not by a global flood but by multiple processes that are well known,
gradual, and natural, with nuclear decay rates all artifically adjusted
to give the illusion of great age, etc., phony ice layers, tree rings,
all consistent with a billions of years old Earth, and inconsistent with
a 10,000 or so year old Earth.

Get real, pal.  Creationism is simply what Steve Allen would call, Dumbth.
Insidious creeping fear and ignorance in the general population.

Some of you may read this as hostility towards religion.  It is not.
It is merely impatience with blind ignorance.  Unlike stupidity,
ignorance is curable, so there's no excuse.

Keith

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:36:52 GMT

A propos of:

>>>	Why monotheistic religions?  Why can't all of the evil in the world
>>>be caused by the machinations of Loki, who Thor strives to suppress?

>>Survival of the fittest I am afraid. If a religion dies out then presumably
>>its "deity" is not interested in the world anymore. If christianity
>>ends up with no adherents, I will take that as evidence that God has given up
>>and gone home.

>	So the best religion is determined by which one has the loudest voice?
>I believe it was Stalin who asked 'how many divisions does the Pope have'?

>>(The converse is not true, of course, just because a religion has adherents
>>does not mean it is true).

>	Personally, I couldn't care less what Rieux or Dostoyevsky wrote.
>You are insisting on putting my words into the format that someone else wrote,
>and I find it annoying.

>	Please quit trying to tell me what my position is.

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
>btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
>                      Ames, IA 50011

JCS expostulates:
WHAAAT? I am doing what to your words?  Did you read the sentence in
brackets before posting the reply? I said that if there are no adherents
to a religion that I will take that as evidence that their deity has
given up on makind. You manage to turn this into "if a religion has
lots of vocal adherents then I am claiming it to be the best".

What kind of logic is this?
 
You never responded to any of the points I made but limited yourself
to quibbling about "Ways to start an argument: No 1. Do not start with
a dichotomy.", and then state that you couldn't care less what two main  
expositors of existentialism say. 

How can I tell you what your position is, you haven't said
anything remotely connected to the points I made?

As an aside: Who cares what Stalin said? His greatest achievement was
managing to kill more of his own countryman than any other person
who ever lived (including Hitler), and for this he will be remembered,
meanwhile the Catholic church still plods along doing boring things
like standing up to oppression in Poland and being shot (Jerzy 
Popiewuszko) and helping sick people in India.

julian

Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
From: esposito@uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito)
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Organization: chaos mostly
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:37:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.153652.12928@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au 
writes:>
>  I haven't noticed any posts condeming yoga/meditation/eastern philosophy 

Yoga, meditation, and eastern PHILOSOPHIES don't include a GOD.  We are 
athiests.  We do not believe in a God.  Yoga, meditation and eastern 
philosophies do not include a God.  That is why you don't hear us debating  
them.

Note: Taoism as a philosophy does not include a God, however there is a 
theistic version of Taoism, in which Lao Tsu was supposedly conceived 
immaculately by a passing comet, that does include theistic thought.  The 
easterners do seperate philosophy and religion.  Personally I think 
conception from a passing comet is a load of horse pucky.

Trying to be helpful and contribute to a stimulating conversation.
--
Andrew Joseph Esposito                    internet:  esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu
voice (919) 379-8244                      bitnet:    in%"esposito@uncg.bitnet"

--
Disclaimer:  The opinions herein are not necessarily the opinions of any
organization or group of which the author is affiliated.  The preceding 
opinions may not even be the author's.  No guarantees are given and no 
warranties will be honored.
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Chance? Yeah, Sure  (was: worthless comic strips)
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:22:20 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1992Sep11.145357.11597@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>In article <87ST03Qz76e400@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>[quoting J. Hart's "B.C."]
>>And perhaps it happened by chance. Yeah, sure.
>
>Could a creationism apologist please explain to me how an act of
>God can be distinguished from pure chance?  I submit that it is
>creationism which says life arose by pure chance, and evolution
>which says is was shaped by selection.
>-- 
>Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
>isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin

Yes, good point. Now in His alleged creation, the Lord allegedly created a 
particular ecological system, a particular set of animals, a particular set
of plants, out of the (infinite) set of possibilities; was that through
Divine Chance? ie what God felt like on the day (by chance?)
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:59:59 GMT
Organization: HTE

*>I hope you don't seriously mean, that since sauropods had to hold their
*>necks out AND their tails out, that it all balanced, and that the whole
*>deal was therefore easy for them.  If so, a better analogy would be
*>holding TWO 20 lb weights out from your body, one in each hand, instead
*>of just the one we were talking about.

*I will stretch a point and give Ted credit for claiming that I made a
*bad analogy.  However the 20 lb weight bit doesn't wash.  I suspect that
*Ted knows this perfectly well and is checking to see if anyone will catch
*him out, or whether they will just grumble at it him.

*The reason that it is hard to hold your arms out for an extended period
*of time is that the force comes from the muscles in your shoulders.  Your
*arm is much longer than the length the muscles are operating over; you
*operating at a mechanical disadvantage. [Translation -- the leverage is
*against you.]

I did mention that it wouldn't even matter if you held weight out from the
shoulders (difficult), or out from the waist, elbow at the waist sort of
(less difficult).

*If a sauropod had held his neck up the way you hold your arm up, it would
*indeed been in deep sneakers.  But it didn't, of course.  They had moderate
*size cable running along the top of their vertebrae -- there is a big groove
*just for that purpose.  The cable [actually a big ligature] was attached
*all along the body of the sauropod.  Actually it ran both ways so, yes,
*the tail and neck counterweighted each other.  

The conception described above is straight from lalaland.  Let me explain.

In the case of birds sleeping with legs bent, you truly can say that it
is effortless, since tendons totally suffice to hold the position.  This
means that the tendons would break if the bird were forced down past 
some point while in the same basic posture.

Were a sauropod's neck and tail to be permanently help up and supported
by such a system, then he would die of thirst within one more day than
as many days as he could go without water;  he would not be able to lower 
his neck to drink.


*Nice try, Ted.

Nice try, Rich.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:32:05 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>You forgot that nobody really claimed NC before 1323, even if it
>was part of Sweden since early 1000. 

	No, actually it was part of Novgorod, but not ruled effectively. 
	Novgorod was only spreading their religion to Carelia, and that was
	the reason, why the pope commanded Swedes to do crusades to Tawasthia
	(and then to south Carelia). 

>So your historical table shows clearly that NC is a Russian colony.
>If we want to believe that, then you really have a low opinion
>of the level of intelligence of us reading this group.

	Province actually. Proof, Kent, we want proof. Prove my chart false.
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Request for book reviews
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:54:02 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <6914@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
>    Malcolm  Bowden,  _Science  vs  Evolution_, Sovereign
>    Publications, Bromley, Kent, 1991.

A very good book for the layman. Covers most of the relevant
topics. I would recommend it as a first read.
It mainly addresses the falsity of evolution side. Apparently
a forthcoming volume will address the issue from a creation
perspective.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 18:51:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.130157.3954@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <dkristof.715431601@hq> dkristof@Pt.hq.af.mil (Capt Dave Kristof) writes:
>>
>>What is the purpose of mankind?  
>
>To worship God.
>
>My next door neighbour and myself had a long discussion about this.
>We concluded that God is simply amazing and wonderful and very very
>clever and brilliant - in facts words (and thoughts) fail to 
>sum Him up - not surprising really as He is our Creator and we are
>His created beings. My neighbour and I thought about all that God had 
>done for us and given us, including existence itself, and we decided
>that to spend eternity in God's presence (heaven) was an appropriate
>length of time - we would be able to actually see God face to face
>and praise, honour, glorify and simply worship Him.

Interesting--so this "heaven" is where one is sentenced to spend an
eternity heaping adulation on an omnipotent being with (at least 
according to the bible) a level of moral development well below most
spoiled children (and a serious sadistic streak, to boot) in a hideous
caricature of a bad Hollywood cocktail party that never ends.

Presumably, this "heaven" is that special corner of hell reserved for
those poor benighted souls who managed to allow the brains god had
given them to atrophy to the point where they could reject everything
god's creation around them says in favor of the words in whatever book
of myths and fables happened to be nearest them when they were growing
up.

Trygve  
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Flat Earth and the Bible
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:02:13 GMT

Does anyone have the list of Bible quotes that the flat-Earthers
use as the basis of their claims?  Thanks in advance!
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Creationist videos in class?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 22:28:53 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

 One of my professors today, while mentioning desktop publishing, said
that, in Texas, it is now permissible to use video materials instead
of textbooks in classrooms.  

 1: Is this true?
 
 2: I sense a 'niche' for the creationists to exploit... I understand
that they tend to focus on Texas and California on their schoolbook
front, since what Texas and California buy often (usually?) becomes
the _de_facto_ standard for textbooks around the country.
 I've heard that creationists make a fair number of videos, and I
fear that a science teacher with a bias, or just a poor grasp of
biology and a lack of imagination, might use one of these videos...

 Thoughts/comments/reassurances?


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.