HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:33:39 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <106254@netnews.upenn.edu>, rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
|> In article <1jo29o$srt@agate.berkeley.edu>
|>     philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
|>
|> Frequently the scenario is turned upside down here (tag John Livesay
|> :-).  Knowing what we know about different molecular biological
|> events, how could you *prevent* macro-evolution from occuring as
|> described (e.g. by Chris)?

Here's a summary of an argument I have presented in the past.

Suppose you hold that macro-evolution and micro-evolution are in
some sense different in kind.   Perhaps you believe that macro-
evolution takes place through a mechanism which is different to
"cumulative microevolution".       Perhaps you hold that there
is some "limit" to micro-evolution which would prevent cumulative
micro-evolution producing macro-changes.

Then the question is, how is this limit implemented?   If there
is to be some mechanism to prevent micro-evolution producing
cumulatively greater and greater changes, there has to be some
information stored somewhere which tells the mechanism of micro-
evolution, in effect, "this far, and no further".

In other words, starting from a species, there has to be a form
of representation of that species against which some future
variant can be compared, in order to see if the putative
micro-evolutionary step at that time is "allowed".

Where to store this representation?   It can't be stored
centrally, outside the organisms - unless you believe in
Sheldrake's informational fields - so it must be stored inside
the individual organism, one copy per organism.   But then
the representation of the species stored in each organism is
*itself* subject to the same forces of change that the rest of
the organism is, so when micro-evolution checks to see if it's
going "too far", it is checking against a different representation
in each separate organism.   So the organisms can in fact diverge
without limit, since each generation of change can produce not
only cumulatively modified organisms, but also organisms which 
each have cumulatively modified representations of what the 
"allowed" forms of their own species are.

Two final points.    First, I don't actually believe that you
can find a separate encoding called "this is the species model"
inside the DNA of each organism.    I'm just abstracting.

Secondly, the obvious "escape" here is to say "Well, micro-
evolution doesn't actually consult a species representation,
it's just that eventually cumulative micro-evolution produces
non-functional organisms.   In fact, that's not an escape,
because now you're saying that the representation "valid species"
is a function of the species+environment, and micro-evolution
can continue to produce cumulatively differing changes as long
as it stays within this representation.   But the information
in "species+environment" certainly changes over time.   In fact,
that's the point, isn't it.

jon.
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: does the bible imply evolution?
Date: 29 Jan 93 01:05:45 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <727674062@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
|>  (In fact, in my
|> more negative moods, I think that (eg) the condor is going to be so
|> genetically fragile because of its population pinch that it makes me
|> mutter under my breath about why we are bothering trying to turn that
|> particular tide.)

Especially considering the evidence that the condor was well on its way
to extinction long before man ever stepped in.  Its numbers and distribution
are those of a relictual species, left stranded by the rapid climatic
changes of the Pliestocene.  (The giant sequoia is anothe example of this).

That is, it may well have been ill-adapted to the current climate anyhow,
so its current genetic poverty will make it pretty much inviable.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones)
Subject: Supernaturalistic Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:57:24 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In an earlier post I asked Phillip Johnson to provide an alternative 
to naturalistic science.  As far as I can tell, he hasn't defined one 
yet.  So, as a spur to discussion, I'll provide a proposal.  This is 
necessarily a straw man, as I don't believe that there is viable
supernatural science.  I'm anxious to have a proponent of 
supernaturalistic science provide a more suitable definition.

The basic tenet of sn science is the existence of God or gods.  I'm 
not sure what the standard definition of God is, but the important 
attributes seem to be an ability to affect the observable world and 
a personality.  God also created the universe, the things in it, and 
humanity, and human morality stems from this creation.

You can't really understand the role of sn science without its
relationship to naturalistic science.  N science is similar to sn 
science, but n scientists don't explain natural phenomena in terms 
of God.  Historically, sn science came first, as humans first 
explained many of their obervations as expressions of God's will.
As more thought was given to problems, though, many observations 
were able to be explained by naturalistic science.  For example, 
we rarely today believe that we should offer a prayer before 
refining oil into kerosene.  It is, I think, fair to say that 
sn science operates in the gaps of n science, and that these gaps 
have been shrinking as n science is able to explain more 
observations.

It is also interesting to note which gaps interest sn scientists 
the most.  For example, I am not aware of an effort to establish 
that both the strong nuclear force and gravity are personal 
expressions of God's will.  I believe that sn scientists are following 
their second tenent; they are most concerned with their 
perception of the relationship between human morality and science.
So, where sn scientists feels that a particular gap in n science 
allows for a sn scientific theory to advance human morality, they 
are unlikely to abandon the gap easily.  Human evolution and 
cosmological history seem to be the most important areas of sn 
scientific controversy today.

In my opinion, the greatest weakness of sn science is that I've 
never seen any positive results from it.  Most sn scientists are 
more concerned with preserving their gaps in n science than in 
promoting new understanding of phenomena.  Some do, however, show 
how their understanding of sn science promotes various human 
morals.  This is dangerous, in my opinion, since historically 
n science usually does override sn science when it is mature enough, 
and morals founded only on sn science may end up baseless.

-Russ Paul-Jones
russpj@microsoft.com
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Darwinism" and Mr. Johnson
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 11:27:14 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>    Mr. Johnson, what, exactly, is "Darwinism?" You've used the word several
> dozen times in each of your long articles, but you have not told the readers
> what the word means. How does "Darwinism" relate to science, evolutionary
> theory, and the topic at hand?
>    A three of four line explanation would be nice, but please feel free to be
> elaborate with your answer.
>    Or offer a reference. By dictionary doesn't have the word.

Read his book, Darwin on Trial.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       ---------------------------------------------------------
      |                Don't forget to chant:                   |
      |                                                         |
      |  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |
      |                                                         |
      |    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |
      |           (kalki@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:43:33 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1993Jan13.142610.16361@medtron.medtronic.com>, ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes:
|> 
|> 1) The central belief of Christian Fundamentalist Creationists is
|>    that the world is on a downward spiral of moral decay.  (This
|>    really does seem to have alot truth to it.) 

Hmm, people have been saying this as far back as there are sufficient records.


|> 3) They then conclude that the only way to turn this situation
|>    around is to get USA society to return to their Christian roots.
|>    (It is true that if everyone started acting like Jesus, most of
|>    these problems would go away, but this country does have freedom
|>    of religion, so some of their tactics are very questionable.)

Also, I do not see that trying to *force* people to act like Jesus is how
Jesus handled things - he mostly called people to *voluntarily* live a better
life.  So thier approach is also theologically unsound.

|>  4) These vitally important Christian roots include the literal 
|>     interpretation of the book of Genesis.  This is where you
|>     find Creationism's true purpose.

Yep, I find I can be a Christian without taking any such stand at all.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: williams@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Tom Williams)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Date: 27 Jan 1993 09:28:43 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu
Keywords: info requested

In article <Jan.21.21.49.24.1993.23599@remus.rutgers.edu> trott@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Trott) writes:
>
>Could someone please give me information on Dr. Duane T. Gish.  He
>claims to have a Ph.D. in biochemistry

 His claim is almost certainly accurate.  The UC system online catalog
lists a Ph.D. dissertation:
8. DISSERTATION
Author:        Gish, Duane Tolbert.
Title:         The application of p-nitrobenzyl chloroformate to peptide
                 synthesis ; Para-nitrobenzyloxycarbonyl derivatives of amino
                 acids ; A method of synthesis of arginyl peptides / by Duane
                 Tolbert Gish. 1953.
Description:   iv, 71 leaves : ill.

Notes:         Titles numbered I., II. and III.
               Thesis (Ph. D. in Biochemistry)--University of California,
                 Berkeley, June 1953.
               Bibliography: leaves 70-71.

Subjects:      Proteins.
               Peptides.

Call numbers:  NRLF            C 2 880 713 Type EXP NRLF for loan details.

The UC System has a number of his other publications since he joined
the ICR.  I searched the Stanford system for his publications and 
couldn't find any :)


--
Tom Williams                       williams@pangea.stanford.edu
Department of Geology				 
Stanford University School of Earth Sciences
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Muscle tissue from mouse to sauropod
Followup-To: talk.origins
Date: 24 Jan 1993 22:33:32 GMT
Organization: chaotic
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macintosh10.cco.caltech.edu

In article <246@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote:

[stuff deleted]

> You've missed the entire point.  The point is, that Kazmaier is so much stronger
> than any kind of animal his own weight, that in any given situation in which
> he would be unable to stand due to gravity, neither would any other animal,

[stuff deleted]

No, Ted's missed the point. I'll grant him that Kazamir can lift up more
weight over his head than any other animal his own weight. Since no other
animal can stand fully upright, he doesn't have much competition. The
amount of weight Kazamir can lift over his head has very little to do with
whether a sauropod can stand.

> -- 
> Ted Holden
> HTE

Justin Fang (justinf@cco.caltech.edu)
                               This space intentionally left blank.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: Re: Who is Christian - a simple answer
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 05:09:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.031007.6898@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:

>Eli is quite correct: very littl eof what Yeshua had to say was new.

If you take everything in the NT that is attributed to Jesus, then there is
a considerable amount that is not just rabbinical Judaism, especially in the
Gospel of John.  Furthermore, if the little that I know about form criticism
is correct, there is still a residue (called the "historical Jesus") that
remains in the Gospels even if you excise the Christology and the Judaism.
Exactly what this residue is is subject to a lot of debate, but from what I
understand there aren't many nowadays who go as far as Bultmann did in
claiming that the only historical fact extricable from the Gospels is that
Jesus existed.
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Dawkins and creative selection
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:27:39 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <108651@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <2B673D21.3999@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:

Brett:
>>Yes, you are right that a distinction should be drawn between
>>cumulative selection and mere natural selection.

Me:
>No need for a mea culpa. In your posts, and our email exchange, you
>were consistent in your usage. 

Me(again):
In fact, you explicitly said cumulative selection in the very next line 
of your post and I edited it out (I just went back and checked.) Given
the substance of my reply, I should have turned on a few more brain
cells in my editing. I was just trying to make the general point that
selection can mean two different things, not that you, Brett Vickers,
made a boo-boo and deserved net.chastisement. Sorry about that.

>>Brett J. Vickers

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: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
Date: 24 Jan 1993 23:26:09 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <8RJqXB7w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>You know, Weiner, you haven't got any idea how fortunate you are.
>
>Reading my signature is the only good thing that ever happened to you in
>your entire miserable life, and you should get down on your knees and
>thank the God who made you for giving you this opportunity to at least
>see His holy name in print.

	Yes, and reading a remark like this makes me think that the
best thing to do is to outlaw some religious practice, especially
conversion religions. There needs to be a Bill of Rights for the
spirit to counter religious faschists like you!

Bruce Salem
From: bocmunro@bnr.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:49:02 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs179.bnr.co.uk

In article <1993Jan25.131504.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan13.160901.9720@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes: 
>> And doesn't Genesis specifically say that Noah collected two of *every*
>> kind?  The ICR is saying that the Bible is false!
>
>This is wrong on two points.
>     1. Noah didn't collect the animals, they came to him. (OK, it's a small
>distinction)

How did the kiwis make it from New Zealand, Ray? Come to think of it how
the heck did they get back there afterwards? Kiwis don't fly, and they
don't get around on foot too smartly either. Care to explain how they
did it?

Explaining the marsupials in Australia should be a piece of cake compared
to explaining some NZ species.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <B.O.C.Munro@bnr.co.uk> (Note new address)
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
From: ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford)
Subject: Re: Come on Mr. Johnson
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:54:30 GMT

Kalki Dasa (system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us) wrote:
: 
: Speaking in support of Dr. Johnson, I can say that it is very definitely
: useful to me. I do not mind reading what someone has to say, especially
: someone who has the mettle to question something as phony as Darwinism.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Question:  How much mettle does it take to question something phony?*


*Mind you, I'm not saying that Darwinism is phony, Kalki said that.  But if
he thinks its phony, why does he think it takes such great mettle to do it?

I think that questioning Darwinism is a good thing, it will enhance our 
understanding of its power, and help us know when it is aplicable and when
it is not.  Steven Jay Gould is a good example of someone who (because of
his competence and knowlege about biology and paleontology) can simultaneously
question and affirm Darwinism.  This process resulted in a better
understanding of one of the mechanisms of evolution (punctuated equilibria).
So far at least, Dr. Johnson is not a good example of someone who is able to
do that.

dan

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tycchow@cayley.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: Re: Johnson uses Argument from Personal Incredulity
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 19:11:37 GMT

In article <2B63AD4A.27409@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>	aren't testing human ingenuity.  Even if we found one
>	example that we *couldn't* explain, we should hesitate to
>	draw any grandiose conclusions from the fact of our own
>	inability.

Curiously, though, when someone like Lionel Tun tries to apply this
reasoning to the Bible instead of to biological phenomena, he is
instantly flamed.  Exercise: translate flamage against Tun into
flamage against the argument quoted above, figure out a response,
and translate back into a defense of Tun.
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: dgt@phy.duke.edu (Dinko Eduardo Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Keywords: info requested
Date: 23 Jan 93 14:11:04 GMT
Organization: Duke University Physics Dept.; Durham, N.C.

Rich Trott writes:

CLAIM #2:  "Darwin cited the giraffe as an outstanding example of
natural selection.  Supposedly, as a result of extended droughts, the
supply of green leaves could be obtained only at the top of the trees,
and therefore the shorter necked giraffe died off.  And the giraffes
which grew longer necks survived.  However, there is no evidence
whatever in the fossil record or elsewhere that giraffes with short
necks have ever existed.  And what would have happened to young
giraffes with relatively short necks?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

About the fossil record suggesting the existence of short-necked giraffes:
There are a few extinct animals that resemble giraffes (with shorter 
necks).  However, it is tricky sometimes to find fossil evidence of
"missing links" from what seem to be one species to another.  The reason
is that apparently species may remain unchanged for long periods of time
, until rigorous conditions allow mutated individuals to survive and 
an evolutionary "step" is taken.  Sudden changes in climate or separation
due to geological changes seem to be percussors of such punctuated evolution.
Because these changes are sudden and over small periods of time, and due
to the fact that earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift change the
surface of the Earth, these scarce fossils become difficcult to find.  Recall
the case of Archeopterix and Sinornis.  Both represent some sort of missing
link between birds and dinosaurs, but only 3 Archeopterix and 1 Sinornis 
fossils have been found (from presumably millions that lived).  

-- 
Dinko Gonzalez Trotter
dgt@phy.duke.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Holden and venus
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:25:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.160938@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan20.003141.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
|> writes:
|> > In article <231@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|> [usual Holden comments about Wayne Throop]
|> >    Did I just miss it before or is this the first time Ted has directly
|> > stated that all astronomers are in a vast conspiracy of false data in
|> > order to prop up SGH?
|> 
|>   Oh, he has stated there is a conspiracy before.  He even came this (holding
|> fingers near each other) close to mentioning the Templars in connection with it.
|> Unfortunately he hasn't actually mentioned them to the best of my knowledge.


	Well, he *has* compared scientists to Nazis, so perhaps
	the Templars are well out of it.



				A Blaggard Liar and Probable Nazi
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:47:29 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1k8u78$nu1@agate.berkeley.edu>
     philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:

}BEGINNING of Chapter Two of Darwin on Trial:  "As the process of
}differential survival continues, the trait eventually spreads
}throughout the species, and it may become the basis for further
}*cumulative* improvements in succeeding generations.  Given
}enough time, and *sufficient mutations of the right sort,*
}enormously complex organs and patterns of adaptive behavior can
}eventually be produced in tiny *cumulative* steps, without the
}assistance of any pre-existing intelligence." P. 17
}
}Of course, to me that's a hypothesis, not a dogma to be
}propounded. 

It is not a "dogma" being propounded, it is a theory which is
consistent with the evidence, and which is still being tested in labs
all over the world.  If you don't like that, then your problems are
with all of science, not just biology.  I and others have repeatedly
pointed out to you that in order to be internally consistent, you
should be just as concerned with things like meteorology.  Do you
constantly flood the weather channel with letters to their producers
complaining about how they're not constantly saying (for example),
"although our best evidence indicates a that the weather will be clear
over washington DC today, we can't rule out the possibility that God
will produce little tornados focussed on members of the Clinton
administration..."

}Phillip E. Johnson
}  School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.space