HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cf@fokus.gmd.de (C. Fuhrhop)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Info needed: change in ratio male/female
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:16:09 GMT
Organization: GMD-Fokus (Berlin)


Hello!
During a discussion I had this weekend someone claimed that in the first
years after WWII the ratio of girls born vs boys born shifted in favour
of girls (in Germany). The claim was basically that for the survival of the
species more women are needed than men and that 'mother nature' would shift
the birth ratio in favor of girls in times of crisis.

I know that it's true for some animals (change of male/female ratio 
due to changes in the environment), but I doubt that this is true for
humans. 

Can anyone comment on this question?

Does anyone have the statistics for Germany available?
(that was the example cited in the discusssion, so I'd like to see
the source data myself)


Thanks a lot
Christian Fuhrhop

fuhrhop@fokus.berlin.gmd.dbp.de
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: ~evolution ==> ~evidence ==> ~science.
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:30:39 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)

In article <1992Aug31.141042@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>>Evolution is completely compelling on scientific grounds.  Rejection
>>>of evolution must impeach all of science as the methedology is uniform.

>> You are the second I've seen with that view.  Perhaps you could tell me
>> how science would be "toast" if evolutionary origin were discarded.

>   Evolution is based on massive amounts of evidence.  To reject evolution
>we would have to reject the notion that evidence is reliable.  The rest of
>science disappears in the same flush of the metaphorical toilet.

I want to point out that the rest of us missed this point of yours, and
responded on the more mundane non-philosophical points that the fact of
evolution is tightly interwound with everything from noticeable to gigan-
tic chunks of a dozen or so other scientific disciplines.  It's easy to
bleat "evolution is only a theory" or some such creationist mantra when
you have absolutely no awareness--like Drew admits to above--that this
attitude leaves gaping holes all across the scientific spectrum.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:02:45 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

Brett Vickers said:
 
>>
>>(By the way, the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how
>>life got here -- only how it evolved once it began to exist).
 
And Drew Lawson replied:
 
>In its most common usage, it starts from a presumption of very simple
>life forms (single celled, no-nucleus, etc.)  It is used to explain all
>current life forms.  This is pretty close to a common usage definition
>of where life came from.

  Drew, this is a fairly technical point.  The scientific study 
of the development and change of life over time is called "evolution".
The scientific study of the origin of life from nonliving matter is called
"abiogenesis".  Your not knowing this is no crime, of course, but it's
an indication of how little you really understand of the 
scientific study of these matters.

-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14985 talk.origins:10073
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:26:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <25956@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep1.231903.4663@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes...
|> [...]                      And even near equilibrium, 
|> there is nothing in the second law which precludes the system from 
|> occupying a particular microstate in which there is greater organizational
|> complexity in some subsystem (which you can define rigorously in terms
|> of information content, if you like.)

One more thing.  Information theory and thermodynamics are disjoint 
subjects.  Statistical mechanics and information theory share many 
mathematical formulae.  However, these formulae only refer to the 
*same* thing if the definition of "information" is isomorphic to 
that of "available energy microstates" - in which case, the theories 
are related, but trivially so.  For example, consider a DNA sequence 
which holds the information for building human hemoglobin.  If you 
randomly shuffle that DNA sequence, the "information" (from a genetic 
point of view) has been destroyed, but the resulting DNA molecule 
still has essentially the same entropy (it may have slightly more 
or less depending on how the shuffling has altered the total energy 
stored in the bonds between the nucleotides).  In other words, the 
definition of "information" is usually in terms of some interpretive 
model (to which energy content or configuration is often irrelevant), 
while the statistical mechanics definition of entropy is *purely* in 
terms  of the energy states available to the system.  These two 
definitions are not usually covariant - or even correlated.

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: The Crimson Permanent Assurance Company
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:36:22 GMT

In article <52524@dime.cs.umass.edu> michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras) writes:
   In article <714642841.F00005@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
   >I am no entomologist, but are you sure that there are *no* species that
   >use four legs for locomotion? Remember, the four-leg rule is there to
   >exclude almost all insects. I think you will find that there are some
   >which fit into the category as defined.

   >None the less, I think you will find
   >that among the *enormous* range of insect life that fills our planet
   >there are some that match the description.

   Examples, please.  Since this is to establish the accuracy of Leviticus
   11:22, make sure the examples are of the specified types of insects.
   You're making an assertion that these peculiar insects exist; prove it.

Well, at least several species of praying mantis walk on only four legs,
as the front limbs are the serrated-edge hunting tools, unsuitable for
walking.  Their raised posture with catch-limbs spread wide give the
insect its name.  I believe several types of mantis are common in the
mediterranean region.

I doubt though that this is one of the types of the insects that was meant.
-- 
   /* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (V.32bis/USR-HST,24h/d) */
 /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1B18/SF-40100 Jyvaskyla/Finland, ICBM: 62.14N25.44E */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Organization: RL
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 13:32:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.123010.22869@lonex.rl.af.mil> jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims) writes:
>
>I still think this whole started when some semi-literate con artist 
>mispelled kinaesthesiology.
>
>-- 
>jft

And another misspelled "mispelled."  But a typo isn't really the same
thing.  

-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The difference between censorship and rudeness.
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:09:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug26.054127.10572@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith) writes:
>Rudeness is uncool
>because it violates the
>homo sapien survival stragedy, that humans should help each other out.
>Big Al.

"Helping each other out" is starting to get pretty darn expensive.

How long before "survival of the fittest" again has real meaning
to homo sapiens?

In Somalia, calling it "rudeness" is an understatement.
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Evolution and God: a true statement
Date: 28 Aug 1992 22:09:43 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


     The subjects of God and Evolution are partially inaccesible
     to scientific investigation.  Therefore, we will never have
     a complete scientific theory of either.

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15473 talk.origins:10417
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:20:44 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <2A9F37E4.18926@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>I got into this discussion trying to make the point that science
>>needn't be so hostile toward religion.  That was all.
> 
> I think you're confusing indifference for hostility.
> 

Science isn't hostile to religion.  Science can't be hostile, it is a
discipline, not a person.  *Scientists* are hostile toward religious people
who try to insist that religion belongs in science.  It doesn't!  Religion
is METAPHYSICAL.  Please look up this word, evidently you do not understand
what it means.  God is supernatural.  Look up supernatural.  It means other
than natural.  Science is concerned with the natural world ONLY, not the 
supernatural.  
Sorry if this is simplistic, but sometimes that seems to be the only way
to get through to people like Drew who doesn't want to listen to our
explanations. 

Sue


> --
>  ___            _    _     _  _        _
> (  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
> (___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
> Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15899 talk.origins:10840
From: jensen@unlinfo.unl.edu (michael jensen)
Subject: Re: Life Spring...Request for References
Keywords: lifespring
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:34:37 GMT

bchugg@leland.Stanford.EDU (Barron Deland Chugg) writes:

>A good friend of mine has just taken the Life Spring seminar.  While
>I hope he finds nothing but happiness in it, I am innately nervous
>about these groups (what can I say, I'm a child of the cult infested
>seventies).  I would greatly appreciate any references to this
>organization that I can get.

I believe that Life Spring is what Werner Erhardt of est (Erhardt 
Seminar Training) formed after leaving/selling off est. 

Michael Jensen, who never got "clear"
jensen@unlinfo.unl.edu
standard disclaimers in effect


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15658 alt.alien.visitors:6293 talk.religion.newage:4165
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:31:16 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <16854EA1E.CCEN077@USLVM.USL.EDU> CCEN077@USLVM.USL.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.161700.6099@auto-trol.com>
>davgot@auto-trol.com (David Gottner) writes:
>>
>>So, how are past memories imprinted on the DNA?
>>--
>>Amrit Prem                      |
> 
>The memories of all of each person's ancestors is passed on through the DNA;
>not past lives per se, but the complete history of our genes.
> 
>                                                             Ellen

Ellen, you've been reading too much Frank Herbert.  _Dune_ was only
fiction!  Or do you simply mean we can find out something of our
ancestors by seeing what genes they passed on to us?

	RA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Organization: more anchovies, sir?
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 17:25:30 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1992Aug31.161411.26545@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss) writes:
>
>I figured Sesco had to be joking because he said absolutely nothing
>about people who order pineapple on their pizza.

Wow!  And up until now, I had no clear way to tell if I was a Real Secular
Humanist!  Do they have ham and pineapple pizza in Hell?  I know they have
pizza parlors, because I worked in one once.  :-)

	David Pipes
robear@digex.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Crop circles: natural or human-made?
Organization: RL
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 20:05:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.043045.6050@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Aug25.182729.21896@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith) writes:
>]>>
>]>>
>]>>       o
>]>>
>]>>     o O   o
>]>>
>]>>       o
>]>>
>]>>in a field... about 5 minutes after takeoff towards the North.
>]>
>]>Looks like the constellation of Cygnus.
>]>
>]It's not a crop circle anyway, I see loads of circular plantings whenever
>]I fly over the great plains and I'm pretty sure they were plowed that way.
>
>No, this is not a circular planting. All circles were contained within
>the same field. The largest appeared to be about 100-200' in diameter,
>with the smaller ones maybe 1/2 to 1/3 the diameter. It looked just
>like the photos of "real" crop circles I have seen.
>
>I also have seen lots of circular plantings. They look very different.
>
>-- 
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
>john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
> - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
> - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -

Could they have been circular irrigation systems?  
-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15386 talk.origins:10365
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:25:14 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug27.183338.12915@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>I am questioning current intent of the masses.

You are writing silly sentences.

>I know this is simplistic, but what harm would be caused by letting go
>of evolutionary origin?

There's not much point to science, is there?  We're all going to die
sooner or later.  Unless science figures out how...

>That's an easy way out of answering the question:  "That's stupid.
>Next question."

For many of your "questions", it's the right answer.

>I don't hold that the "straightforward
>interpretation" is the only valid viewpoint.

But, of course, your alternative interpretation is that the Earth
is 6000 years old and all of those who do accept the "straightforward
interpretation" have been deceived.

I wonder why I find that interpretation hard to accept.

Because there's not the slightest bit of evidence that it might be true?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:48:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.084817.802@klaava.Helsinki.FI>,
cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.155544.15577@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew
Lawson) writes:
> >Linguistics depends on humans having evolved from primates?
> 
> Well, this escapes me, too.

Actually, some of linguistics is based on studies of anatomical and
neurological similarities and differences between humans and nonhumans,
but the main point was probably that linguistics ALSO depends on an
Earth older than 6,000 years, largely to allow modern languages time to
have evolved from their precursors.  The Tower of Babel is the Bible's
explanation for linguistic diversity; modern linguistics isn't
compatible with that.  If the Old Earth falls, linguistics will feel the
tremor, too.

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14993 talk.origins:10086
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:51:51 GMT
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


>> [Aesop vs. the Christian bible]
>>
>>Im willing to accept that the message of the first one is correct
>>whether they are true or not,  But the second one? I don't think so.

>Just curious, but why?

Maybe because the former deals with human interactions familiar to most
readers more or less accurately; whereas the later makes many claims which
cannot be independently verified, and which indeed are often contradictory.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15319 talk.origins:10308
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:17:54 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug27.150126.11508@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes...

>I still have a problem understanding how anyone can claim to _know_
>what happened 500,000 years ago.
>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,

I know what happened 500,000 years ago in exactly the same way that
you know details of the life of Jesus.  I read it in a book written by
someone who knows more than I do.

-Scotyt
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: evolution and intelligence (sea creatures)
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:51:28 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <94945@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.055957.28401@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>
>>>Couldn't there be others, which just have not been given time to develop?
>
>>  Sure, there could.  The most promising immediate candidates that
>>present themselves are our relatives in the ape family, especially
>>the great apes (chimp, gorilla, and orangutan). 
>
>Don't overlook octopi, they are already very intelligent. They have
>recently been shown to learn by observation (it was a Science
>paper, but it hit the popular press as well) and it has long been
>known that they modify their environments; they excavate and build
>protective barriers in front of their dens. Further evolution
>towards increased intelligence would probably require more social
>interaction than they supposedly have, however. If I were to
>speculate rabidly for a moment, I would say that they would be a
>more likely candidate to develop intelligence on par with humans than 
>apes since the "smart ape" niche is already filled. The "smart
>underwater organism" niche is vacant.
>

There is some evidence that whales or dolphins might have intelligence
equal to or surpassing our own.  How does one measure intelligence?

The late Isaac Asimov, in his book _Extraterrestrial Civilizations_ addressed
this topic in the first chapter.  Before setting out on a search for ETIs,
Dr. Asimov began by defining what Intelligence was.  My, what good science! 8)

His basic conclusion was the intelligence for which he was searching was one
who had a technology (leaves out the whales and dolphins -- no hands to make
technology with) which had 'tamed' fire (there go the great apes).  Now, with
that defination, we are the only intelligent spieces.  But is that a good
defination?

Maybe a good defination of intelligence would resolve this issue?

Just a thought.


-- 
-----------------------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\---------------------------
J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\\   ...!uunet!digi!jtisdel
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\\        jmtisdel@aol.com
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What is intelligence?
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:12:33 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <GERRY.92Sep2100013@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes...
> 
>You are correct.  I believe that the real advances in AI will come
>from those programs that are implemented as part of a mobile system,
>not those that stay in the lab.  To me, intelligence is required to
>deal with a changing, uncertain environment, but is not needed in a
>static environment.   For instance, trees have no use for intelligence
>because even if they were intelligent, there is nothing they could do
>anyway!

I would go one step further.  I think that intelligence arises, in large
part, from interaction with a complex environment.  The kinds of abilities
which we associate with intelligence, and which are so hard to program into
an AI program, eg., context-sensitive inferences, are an acquired skill.
I think that a sentient computer must have sense organs (eyes at least,
but ears and touch sensors would be nice) and a means of locomotion to 
get to the data.  Then, if you have sufficient hardware and low-level
algorithms, there is some hope of creating an intelligent, self-aware
machine.

-Scott 
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic