HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Thanks, Joel
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:04:02 GMT

In article <9208262110.AA13337@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>	General question:  without catastrophic events such as
>planetary-rocking collisions, what would the course of evolution be?
>I.E. are collisions/mass extinctions required to "shake the pot"
>resulting in more diversity?
>
>	I would think that in the absence of such shake-ups, 
>Punctuated Equilibrium would postulate endless stability (shake-ups
>on the local level including climate change processes not as 
>massive as a big collision event).  But my knowledge of Punc. Eq. is
>mostly from this group.

Time for another recommendation of a new book: _Extinction: Bad Genes or
Bad Luck?_ (I might have the order reversed) by David M. Raup (sorry not
to have publication information).  Jim, the Prince Georges County Library
has this book.

Another new one that I haven't read yet is _The Miner's Canary_ by Niles
Eldredge.  It's also on extinction.

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fred Hoyle followup (ignore if redundant)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:03:46 GMT


swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>Yep, he is a famous radio astronomer.  Outside of that restricted field
>he is a total chowder-head.  He knows *nothing* of biology, and his spewings
>on that subject are obviously out in left field to anyone who knows any
>biology.

He has a co-author who deserves at least half the blame.

>A theory which postulates an unknown physical process is supposed to be
>taken seriously??

Well, that's not fair. He postulated a process which explained the
known data, just as Maxwell and Rutherford did, 'back when. His
wasn't the only suggestion which fit the data, and when better data
came in, the Hoyle C-field no longer fit, and was dropped. That's the
way science goes. In his day, he was a good astronomer.

Now ... one wonders. Claiming incorrectly that a fossil has been
faked, seems like odd behavior.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:58:37 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <87429@netnews.upenn.edu*, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
 
* The question of the origins of the variety of language is turning into
* yet another glorious triumph for evolution.  

Except for a couple of little minor details...  for instance, the fact that
standard theory cannot begin to explain the total unrelatedness between
Indo-European (Japhetic) and Semetic languages, despite there being no real
racial differences between the two groups, and the obvious implication
that the divide between the two groups cannot be more than a few thousand
years back in time.

* As an aside, contrast this with the paucity of linguistic research
* inspired by the tower of Babel story.

Minor problem:  the tower of Babel story is essentially true;  the yuppie
theory isn't.  I'll repost my language article shortly.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:29:01 GMT

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>What then do you call biology?  Please tell us the criteria by which you
>judge.

	I accept the common criteria to science. 

>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. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creative speculation on outrageous chance
Keywords: Devonian
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:19:42 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <56qU02wK1fCg01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes) writes:
|
|   jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
|>
|>   (quotes Washington Post article about microtektites found
|>    in 365-Myear old sediments in Belgium)
|>
|>  Quick question:  is the earlier extinction the Permian?
|
|No, it's in the upper Devonian.  I have the relevant issues
|of _Science_ at home -- I'll bring 'em in and provide
|citations, more exact dates, and suchlike technical stuff.

Ah yes, another one of the Big Five (extinctions that is).
That makes sense.  I *knew* that 365 MY was far too old for the terminal
Permian extinction.

|>	Based on this article, it appears that at least twice the Earth
|>had evolved a very stable population which existed for a period of time
|>immensely longer than humanity's miniscule temporal foothold.
|
|Many more mass extinctions are known; I think at least ten.

This depends somewhat on what your recognition criterion is for a 'mass
extinction'.  There were five *huge* extinction events, and a number of
lesser ones, during the Phanerozoic (the time since the beginning of the
Cambrian).  Nobody agrees on the exact count, since there are a plethora
of intervals of increased faunal turnover that might be included if you
used a fine enough net.

The Big Five are (if my memory is right): mid-Cambrian, Late Devonian,
terminal Permian, terminal Triassic, and terminal Cretaceous.
[The last is the one that got the dinosaurs].

|There are lots of impact craters known, too -- see the recent
|thread in sci.geology for a listing of the largest ones.

Yep, lots, and at best, only a few of them are associated with any extinction
events at all.  This is one of my main reasons for not accepting an impact
as a sole cause, only a contributing cause.

|The rest of your posting seems to imply that asteroid or
|comet sized bolides should be thought unusual -- nothing
|can be further from the truth.  Every piece of old planetary
|crust preserved in the Solar System shows evidence of a
|continuing barrage -- on the timescale of the history of
|life, impacts are as common as traffic accidents in a big city.
|
Not exactly continuing, exponentially decreasing.  The barrage was intense
during the first billion years (when the Lunar Maria, and the other major
impact features of the Solar System were formed) and has been decreasing
since, as the candidate bodies get swept up (by the collisions themselves).

Of course there are still a *few* available large bodies, and quite a number
of intermediate sized ones.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:49:22 GMT

In article <87466@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.134520.4814@asl.dl.nec.com>, duffy@aslss02 (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>>It would certainly clear up a lot of things for me if I could view a
>>videotape of random molecules being selected into usable DNA, proteins, etc.
>>(From when it actually happened of course, not a contrived lab experiment)
>
>So where's your original videotape (with sound) of "And God said, Let
>there be light, and there was light"?  That would sure clear up a lot
>of things for a lot of people too.
>
>Failing such impossible requirements, most of us get by with more
>indirect methods.  Could you please point out some flaw for me in the
>tons and tons of indirect evidence that all point to one inescapable
>conclusion?
>-- 
>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

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".

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: rlwinter@rosarita.engr.ucdavis.edu (Richard Lee Winterstein)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: An interesting comment...
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:38:53 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering - University of California - Davis


Came across this last night in the opening pages of Dobzhansky's _Mankind_
_Evolving_, published in 1962:

"Christianity is a religion that is implicitly evolutionist, in that it 
believes history to be meaningful:  its current flow from the Creation,
through progressive revelation of God to Man, to Christ, and from Christ to
the Kingdom of God.  St. Augustine (354-430) expressed this evolutionistic
philosophy most clearly.  But the Judeo-Christian tradition took over from the
oriental religions the idea of the Garden of Eden and of the Fall as the 
beginning of the world's history*.  Interpreted literally, rather than 
symbolically, this view is anti-evolutionistic.  Moreover, almost two 
millenia of Christian exegesis do not make it clear that the history of man
ought to be an evolutionary development, a collaboration of God and Man,
rather than a series of fitful interventions by God."

*--note--as I've excerpted this paragraph, this sentence may sound out of
order; the previous paragraph, however, mentioned certain Greek and Hindu
concepts against which this paragraph contrasts.

Rick
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: frazier@kona.cs.ucla.edu (Gregory Frazier)
Subject: Re: Vestigial organs
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 19:28:47 GMT

Dave Fisher writes:
>I'm looking for a source of detailed information about "jury-rigged"
>adaptations, vestigial organs, and the like.  I was considering reading
>Darwin's book on Orchids... anyone have a better suggestion?

Having seen the PBS documentary on the making of a baby, one is
really quite struck by the jury-rigged nature of the human male
scrotum.  It seems that our testicles just don't work too well
when they are at body temperature - much more sperm is produced
if they are kept a few degrees cooler.  So, instead of keeping
our balls in a nice safe place, like inside our pelvis, we have
to have them hanging down between our legs to keep them cool.
Talk about jury-rigged!

--
"They thought to use and shame me but I win out by nature, because a true
freak cannot be made.  A true freak must be born." - Geek Love

Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
From: brinkman@si194b.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Crap from a different source. (was: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT co-exist)
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:58:27 GMT


   In article <1992Aug28.004002.4893@ccu.umanitoba.ca> 
vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes...

> God and evolution are contradicting theories.

   Great, a pro-evolution poster who demonstrates that obstinate
intellectual vacuity is not the sole province of the Creationists who post
to talk.origins.

   Great, a pro-evolution poster who demonstrates that monumental hubris is
not solely confined to the puerile prattlings of Tun, Maier, and cohorts.

   Great, a pro-evolution poster who provides yet another reason (as if they
needed one) for the ignorant defenders of the Creationist faith to rouse
themselves from their fitful slumber and post and repost and repost that a
scientific theory is really the work of a demonic force.

   Great, a pro-evolution poster who is offensive at the same high standards
we have come to expect from the Creationists.

>Vern Nelson

   Damn straight this is a slam, without the slightest redeeming quality.
In my eyes, Mr. Nelson attempts to tie evolution to atheism are no more
becoming than Creationist attempts to do the same.  Furthermore, I don't
feel a Creationist teacher spouting Christianity in the public science class
rooms is any more of a threat to the Freedom of Religion than having Mr.
Nelson-think-alikes spout their version of atheism in the same arena.
Intolerance is intolerance, no matter what the underlying bases.

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:12:04 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <1992Aug28.020047.3596@cco.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
|> 
|> >In <1992Aug27.125924.21174@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|> 
|> >>In article <1992Aug27.050110.21622@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
|> >>}All life on this planet can only have a single point of origin.
|> 
|> >>Why?
|> > What caused the origin of the very first cell?
|> > Did God make the first cell?  Yes or No?  It is a binary question.
|> > 
|> > You cannot answer, god did, but it did it by itself too.
|> 
|> > God and evolution are contradicting theories.
|> 
|> The theory of evolution does not have to include the origins of life.
|> Evolution deals with natural selection, etc., and is not concerned with
|> how the first cell developed--only concerned with how that cell evolved.
|> 
|> keith
|> 

	Or to phrase it as Darwin himself did:

	"After life had been breathed by the Creator into a few
	forms or one...."

	(origins, last page, quoted from memory but I'm sure the substance
	is accurate).

	So Darwin, at least, did not see an evident contradiction
	between evolution and god.  And though his own beliefs "evolved"
	towards atheism/agnosticism in later life, he never claimed
	that such a contradiction existed.

	Amazing that a single quote from Darwin answers both Mr. Nelson
	and Mr. Larsen.

						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Two ape men?  Who ordered THAT?
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:29:12 GMT

> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> 
>How strange. I thought evolutionists reckoned that all humans alive
>today are descended from a pair of ape-men from the distant past.
>Creationists believe all humans today are descended from Adam and
>Eve. Are the two approaches so different that you can brand one as
>impossible? Again this confirms that evolutionism is based on
>belief. Ie some top notch evolutionist makes a speculation, and
>others believe. Take the collection of speculations and just-so
>stories that I predicted would come in response to the original
>question that started this thread. Every budding evolutinist can
>come up with his own theory. None of these can be tested let alone
>proven.

   Lionel, you did it again.  Find any reference in which any evolutionary
scientist claims proof of descent of humanity from a single isolated pair of
proto-humans and I'll eat my socks.  If you had read any of the stuff Chris
Colby writes for your benifit you would notice that evolution currently thinks
a whole big population of ape-persons evolved into a whole big population of
humans, Chris Colby's recent joke nothwithstanding.

   Radical isolation like the Hawaiian wallabee isn't thought to be the common
mode of spieciation (Chris?) and is not thought to be what happened with
people.  *sigh* Genetic diversity alone blows up the Adam and Eve as a good
hypothisis on your proposed time scale.

   The key feature in all your arguments is a stunning lack of understanding of
the material you're trying to discuss.  Understand FIRST, talk SECOND.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:02:35 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 <1992Aug31.154733.18325@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>In answer to the question of how biological evolution is important to
>>linguistics of all subjects, I know of two.  One is the question of the
>>origin of language itself.  The second is the origin of the variety of
>>languages.

>	You ignore the fact that languages have developed to simpler forms 
>	not more complicated as the so-called evolution "theory" claims. 

Considering that I was not saying anything about the evolution of languages
per se, but the evolution of man and its relevance towards linguistics, it's
no surprise that I ignored such "facts", as you call them.

Moreover, only a moron who has zero comprehension of what evolution claims
would be so bold as to state that evolutionary theory claims that things
must develop from simpler to more complicated.  That's just a flat out lie.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ICR and Hugh Ross
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:07:28 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

In article <2AA2B0ED.23928@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>I have a single extra copy of each of the July and August 1991 issues
>>of the ICR's _Acts & Facts_ and _Impact_ periodicals.  The two _Impact_s
>>are attacks on Hugh Ross.
>
>Just curious:  Does the ICR call Hugh Ross' Christianity, faith,
>or lack thereof into question?
>
>-
Duane Gish and Hugh Ross appeared together on "Focus on the Family" a couple
weeks ago. Ross and Gish claim to have a "cordial relationship", although
Ross complained that some ICR staffers had slandered him. Based on what
I've heard Morris, Gish and others say about those who accept an old earth
and/or the big bang and/or theistic evolution, I would suspect that
their position on Ross would be, "He's a Christian, but he's compromising
with humanistic science in a way that may damage Christianity."  

I ordered the tape from the Ross/Gish interview, but it hasn't come 
yet. I will try to post some excerpts from it when it comes.

Bill Hamilton
GM Research and Environment Staff
Xref: sparky talk.origins:10615 sci.skeptic:15698
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:45:49 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <87321@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
(Matthew P Wiener) writes: 
>In article <1992Aug27.183338.12915@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson (Drew
Lawson) writes: 
>>I know this is simplistic, but what harm would be caused by letting go
>>of evolutionary origin?
>
>I don't know.  What harm is there in getting a prefrontal lobotomy?  I
>do not `let go' of notions for which there is such massive overwhelming
>preponderance of solid evidence.

What's more, Drew - you haven't offered us something better to replace
it with.  Also, 'What harm' - what good would come of it?  Please
explain how 'letting go' of evolution is good science.

	RA
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: answer to John Ata's whining
Date: 1 Sep 92 09:53:58 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Sep1.013810.28124@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>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 also consider it rude when the following happens.

1) "A" presents a totally irrational attack on evolution, based mostly
   on ancient arguments or (possibly intentional) misconceptions.
2) These points are refuted point-by-point.
3) "A" refuses to answer to these refutations.
4) After 'resting' for a few weeks/months, "A" starts over with 1).

Evidently you don't, or you concider calling somebody a shithead worse.
I don't.
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: answer to John Ata's whining
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:50:24 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)

In article <1992Sep1.013810.28124@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean (Derek Abbott) writes:
>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.

What usual amazes me is these outside observers usually have it backwards
who is being rude and who isn't.  That's why I recommended to John Ata that
he watch t.o for six months so he can more accurately gauge t.o behavior.

I'm reminded of SJG's essay on the last pitch in Don Larson's perfect game
in the World Series, and how the pitch was technically low, but the umpire
called it a strike, as context required the batter to swing.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,misc.wanted
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: September '78 Sci. American
Keywords: scientific american, evolution issue, 1978, september
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:15:12 GMT

Hey, I see many references made to the September 1978 Scientific
American issue.  I looked at it on microfiche at our library, and
the informational content of that magazine is astounding.  Does
anyone have a back issue they'd be willing to give/sell me?  I
REALLY want this issue bad.
 


-- 
"All religions make me wanna throw up!"
"All religions make me sick!" - Dead Kennedys, Religious Vomit

corey@sdf.lonestar.org                       ..!uunet!convex!egsner!sdf!corey
Newsgroups: talk.origins