HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:37:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep29.155708.29985@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
> >This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine, who
> >is an ornithologist and is applying for postdoctoral positions all
> >over the place.  He mentioned he had applied to work with someone
> >in Finland, and I mentioned my exchanges with Antti.  Sorry, Antti,
> >he'd never heard of you; I told him you claimed to be an ornithologist
> >and a great biologist.  He laughed, and said, "everyone in Finland's
> >an ornithologist; there's nothing else to do there."

> 	Ha, ha ! This was a good one !  :) I liked it. 

I don't know much about the biology studies in Finnish universities,
however I'm quite confident that evolution is part of the curriculum.
It's nearly impossible to avoid it, unless you are stubborn. 

BTW, my old biology teacher in High School (Finland) was an ornithologists,
and he believed in evolution. Funny :-). Otherwise I don't agree that
all Finns are ornithologists.

Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:01:46 GMT

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

>mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery) writes:
>>In any case, are you proposing an alternative? Perhaps God? I see.
>>Well, let me ask you: what is the probability that God arose
>>from non-God......

>	Good question. Dawkins said that creationists say God has always been 
>	and then he could say as well, that cell has always been. 

Could you provide us with a referenced quote? You seem to be putting all
sorts of things into Dawkin's mouth these days.

-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yes, Virginia, Mutation is Enough (long!)
Keywords: artificial life, Tierra
Date: 28 Sep 92 05:46:55 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <4Sz-a8A@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

> So, what I gather you're arguing is, the more complex the lifeform, the
>exponentially harder it is for a mutation to be beneficial? Something
>like that?

Er, something like that.  I would prefer to be more specific in the
formulation.   Prokaryote evolution [used here in the sense of changes
allele frequrency in a population] is a rather different proposition
from evolution in eukaryotes.  A simple way to put it is that evolution
in prokaryotes is reversible.  This is the case both because of the
mechanics of prokaryote genetic exchange, and the genetic constitution
is close to being unstructured.

In eukaryotes the reversibility is restricted.  The degree and kind of
restriction is greater in multi-cellular eukaryotes.  In the latter
case there are genes that control development timing as well as genes
that code for proteins used in the cells metabolism.  The consequences
of any change with phenotypic signifigance are spread over billions of
cells in divers complex organs.

Single point changes are reversible; some have phenotypic consequences
that selection can operate on.  However morphological changes that are
not allometric require multiple modifications of development sequences.
These are the modifications of consequence for phenotypic change with
morphological components.  These are essentially irrevsible.  What I am
arguing is that it is this class of change that is insufficiently likely
to account for morphological evolution.
-- 
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: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:13:37 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>However, note that it's *not* zero. Same with let us say huge stars,
>the size of a N-size star (let's see: Be A Nice Girl Kiss Me 
>Right Now) is so big, it's improbable. However the star exists. As
>I said earlier, we humans have our own narrow view of propabilities
>and sizes, and this is the problem that is ultimately shown in 
>narrow-minded religious and scientific theories, especially creationism.

	Hey, you gave a good answer ! It's only a matter of belief. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over agai
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:08:41 GMT
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

shouse@oscar.UUCP (claude shouse) writes:
: In article <emc.717532405@ro>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
: > 
: > The line between Agnosticism and Atheism is actually very thin
: > or nonexistant.  I suggest you tune in to alt.atheism.  If you
: > post the same comment, you will find that many atheist disagree
: > with you.  
: > --
: > Eli Chiprout
: > Dept. of Electronics
: > Carleton University	
: > emc@doe.carleton.ca	
: 
: The argument that Agnosticism being virtually the same as Atheism is
: simply not valid.  And the fact that you will find Agnostics over
: on alt.atheism as a demonstration of your assertion is just plain
: puerile.  As if you would expect to find Theist Agnostics there.
: 
: To put this question is perspective one must separate belief and
: knowledge.  Being Theist or Atheist is a question of belief and
: has nothing to do with being Agnostic which is a question of
: knowledge.  My view is that True Believers (tm) very often take
: belief to be equivalent to knowledge and that the failure to 
: recognize the difference is the reason that many find them arrogant
: and severely lacking in common sense.  The statement of Mr. Chiprout
: above is a consequence of this failure.
: 
: Claude Shouse

This is interesting.  If being a Theist or Athiest has nothing to
do with being an Agnostic, then are you saying that Agnosticism is
independent from being an Athiest/Theist?  Then it would be possible
to have Theistic Agnostics and Atheist Agnostics.

Or are you saying that Theists/Atheists put more emphasis on belief
than knowledge and Agnostics put more emphasis on knowledge?

It is good to define these two words for the context of talk.origins.
It appears that the terms "Athiest" and "Agnostic" have different
meanings to different people.

Being unable to seperate belief and knowledge may be a good explanation
for the antics of some fundamentalists.  But it would be difficult to
argue that with them.  They often argue that it is a common sense
approach.

--
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:39:49 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Oct5.181204.5855@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
> >Good point, Antti, but it could you explain to me how land plants
> >and fish could have survived without the warmth of the sun's
> >rays?  Surely decreased visibility would have affected the
> >earth's biota to some extent, right?  After all, plants need
> >sunlight to photosynthesize so the fish can eat them, right?
> 
> 	Right ! I think they survive in the cloudy days as well as cloudless.
> 	(there wasn't obviously TOTAL DARKNESS on earth).     

We need scientific evidence, and not wishful thinking, thanks. You
are implying that the fish and plants had quite a radical different
way of surviving during the first 3 days. It sounds like fantasy
for me. Then again creationism lives on peoples' wishes, and not 
on facts.

Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:59:16 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Sep28.185351.19420@cs.joensuu.fi>
asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>Yes, but the probability of evolution is the same as a monkey would 
>type the whole Shakespeare. The probability of one sentence is 
>1 / 1+E40, which would lead to probability of 1/1+E12 per year per 
>planet. And this was only the first sentence. 

You're saying that the probability of evolution (without any divine
direction) is EXACTLY the same as the probability of a monkey typing
the whole works of Shakespeare?  What scientific theories, etc. are
you basing this theory on?  Has someone done that kind of research and
published papers on it or was it an "off the cuff" remark made in some
article.

Mark
-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution Exhibits
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:40:40 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit


Oh, by the way, I used an obscure technical term in my last post:
'lophophorate'.

This is a reference to the rather specialized ring of feeding tentacles that
surrounds the mouth of thrse three phyla.  A lophophore is thus a ring of
tentacles with a more or less continuous internal cavity (coelom) connecting
them, surrounding (topologically) the mouth, and possessing certain other
anatomical specializations.  A lophophorate is an animal with a lophophore.

Now, one of the reasons that these are considered to be related to the
deuterostomes is that the most 'primitive' deuterostomes, the hemichordates,
often bear a tentacle ring that is very little different than that of
a 'true' lophophorate.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Antti fails to grasp basic evolutionary principle
Date: 4 Oct 92 01:27:44 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Sep30.142638.11362@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>	My point is that it would be easier to consider o:s and x:es to be 
>	the same species with each other, but that is not the case. Naturally
>	you would think the evolution has gone like this:

>	   o o o o <---->o<------------------------->x<----> x  x x x x x 

>	but there is NO evidence that for instance     

>	LAR MAR <--->LAR FUS<------------------------>LAR ARG<----->LAR HYP

Once again, Antti, you show your appalling inability to grasp even
the basics of evolutionary biology. Your "Naturally you would think
the evolution has gone like this:" example indicates that you don't
grasp one of the fundamental tenets of evolution -- modern species
share common ancestors; they are not linearly derived from one another.
I would expect that the subspecies all share a common ancestor and
each subspecies has evolved some morphological differences but not
reproductive isolation.

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

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"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:14:12 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <43@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.080657.7277@nic.funet.fi>, Teemu Makinen writes:
> *In article <42@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> 
> *>Again, reread what McGowan says about the lives of elephants.  They spend
> *>most of their waking hours eating;  McGowan says it is not clear to him
> *>how anything could eat enough to get any bigger than elephants.  
> *     ^^^^^^^^
> 
> *What about whales?
> 
> He surely meant large land herbivores.  Whales eat animal protein, whether
> plankton or squid and fish in some cases, and that's a different ball game
> from what Stan and I were talking about.  Sauropods ate the same kinds of
> stuff elephants do.  The point I was making was that if elephants need to
> eat almost all day long as they do and require the volumes of green leaves
> which we know they do, then there is no way that sauropods could live in
> the kind of area which Stan was describing.
> 

You are also ignoring differences in efficiency of digestive systems.  For
example, horses are around the same size as cattle.  BUT, they eat much more.
In fact, their intake of grass is about half again as much as a cow.  This
is because they have a relatively ineffecient digestive system  Cattle have
several stomachs that aid in the digestive process and extract much more
nutritional value out of the feed than horses do.  
So, it is entirely possible that dinosaurs had better digestive systems
than elephants do.

Sue

> 
> 
> -- 
> Ted Holden
> HTE
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Differing accounts of creation in Genesis
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:14:39 GMT

Eric Sieferman (sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu) wrote:

: >Genesis 2 as teaching a chronological sequence, you have first the creation 
: >of man, then the planting of a garden, then God putting the man in the 
: >garden, then God causing trees to grow in the garden.  After this there is 
: >a description of the rivers of the garden. Then man is put in the garden
: >again.  Problems like this should tell us that something is wrong with 
:          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >that approach.  They tell us that chronology is not in view here at all.
:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >What matters in this chapter is man.  Everything else is introduced for 
: >its relationship to him."
: 
: First, Boice nicely shows the chronological contradictions 
: between Gen 1 and Gen 2.  Then he says that since these 
: contradictions exist, that the point is not chronology!
: This only makes sense if one already believes that Gen 1
: and Gen 2 tell the same story without contradiction and
: that the "literal" truth of the OT must be upheld.


	No, he's pointing out that there are chronological contradictions
contained in Genesis 2, and his interpretation is that Genesis 2 is not
to be taken as chronology.  Boice's position appears to be that Genesis 1
is chronologically accurate (witnessed by his support of the progressive
creationists) and that Genesis 2 emphasizes creation relative to man,
with events depicted non-chronologically.  The "problems" he cites are with
a chronological interpretation of Genesis 2.
	Once again, I disclaim:  I'm attempting to explain Boice's 
position, not defend it as my own.  And I also point out again that 
Boice is a Biblical inerrantist of the highest order, so for him to
disclaim a chronological sequence in Genesis 2 probably has a great deal
of theological support.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: joshm@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Favorite astronomer jokes
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:26:28 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Oct2.211509.20010@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> 
> Oh, Ted, you're so hip.
> 
> [tedious and old "jokes" deleted].
> 
> Anyone got a punchline for this one:
> How many catastrophists does it take to shift the orbit of Venus?
> 
> -- 

Just one, if he... waves his hand at the right time... so those new 
undiscovered electromagnetic forces can shift Venus around... and the 
historians can right it down as a myth about the sun god?

--Josh
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Darwinism is dead !
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:28:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.134901.7054@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>It is Creationism, not evolution, which says that some species are more
>>advanced than others.
>>
>
>You are right. No species are more "advanced" than others in evolutionary
terms,
>merely more adapted. However, species have different COMPLEXITIES. This is
>important to grasp. A bacteria is less complex than a human, but not
necessarily
>less advanced. 

  Well, first you have to convince me that a bacteria is less complex than a
human.  I know there are earthworms with over twice as much DNA as humans, so
amount of genetic information is not a good indicator (unless you do want
earthworms to be more complex than humans in your definition).

  To do this we need an objective measure of complexity.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: More on Bob and Ice Cores
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:17:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.183501.4382@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu
writes:
> No, Bob, the tests on ice core dating do NOT depend totally on counting
> layers as you stated.  They depend also on running tests on those layers.
> Several different tests are done, in addition to counting the layers.
> And guess what?  The tests *ALL* correlate with each other.  You never 
> have come up with an explanation as to why this is so.  You just say
> that perhaps there is another explanation but don't come up with a better
> one.  

  But don't you see, this is all wrong!  You see, one scientist gets some data,
and he says to another "How old do you think these are?"  Then the other guy
says "I dunno, maybe . . . 10 million years?"  And the first scientist says
"Okay, so it's 10 million years."  So both just agree on an age . . . right?

 Oh yeah, for the humor impaired add lots of smilies.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: self-deceptive belief maintenance
Date: 1 Oct 92 08:13:45 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Sep30.234629.25450@morrow.stanford.edu>
salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

>In article <1487@esl.ESL.COM>
>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>>In other words, creationism does not include the doctrine that
>>ascribes the origins of all things to God's acts of creation using
>>evolution?

>	But evolution, or any other natural process mechanism, either
>does not comment on the possibility of the Hand of God, or it doesn't
>require it. It also doesn't demonstrate against it.

>	Now is the issue that you WANT any explaination to possitively
>assert the Hand of God, and why should anyone care? I don't. The
>whole matter is moot to me. What matters more is wny anyone argues
>for the necessary intervention of God quite inspite of having no
>means to prove His existence or not. I repeat, my concern is NOT
>about proofs for God's existence but an argument for His necessity in
>the absense of any decidable information. I should add that I am
>neither theist, atheist, or agnostic. I just think that the whole
>question of God's existence is both meaningless and beside the point,
>which is a trancendant justification of human values, quite apart
>from the ephemeral nature of humanity. The latter is often oh such a
>dirty business!

I asked for clarification on the term "creationist" only to know how I
may contribute to any discussions on this subject.

I don't believe it is necessary for God to have created this Universe.
I simply believe that God did create the Universe.  The point of
scriptural referrences to divine creation is to say God did it, not
how it was done.  Knowing the details of how it was done is not
necessary for any spiritual reason.  But I find Scientific research
into how it was done is of great interest.

Mark             
-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Darwinism is dead !
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:49:01 GMT

>It is Creationism, not evolution, which says that some species are more
>advanced than others.
>

You are right. No species are more "advanced" than others in evolutionary terms,
merely more adapted. However, species have different COMPLEXITIES. This is
important to grasp. A bacteria is less complex than a human, but not necessarily
less advanced. 

Onar.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: dog pile on Stan 8-)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:56:55 GMT

In article <1114@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> In article <96536@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

                                     [Deletions]

> Now, Dr Ashlock was the only cladist I have ever known who admitted the
> importance of similarity.  He even proposed a methodological modification
> to the cladistic approach that would take this into account.  (A metric
> for the 'significance' of a set of synapomorphies in terms of total level
> of divergence along a branch).  This, I do not think he ever published in
> it entirety, unfortunately.  (Dan, if I am wrong, could you give us a
> reference?)

   Unfortunately I don't know my fathers work that well; I'm a mathemetician. 
I did some computer programs for him years ago to derive cladograms in this
metric sort of situation but they were lost when he died.  He was pulling that
stuff together when he got sick and died.

   His last graduate student, Alex Slater, is around and has some sort of
e-mail access; I'll try and find his address and put Stan in touch with him and
maybe get this question answered.  Also, have you asked about this on bionet.

> 
> Dr. Ashlock was the only cladist I could ever truly support.  He accepted
> polychotomies, and paraphyletic taxa, and thus demonstrated his ability
> to integrate the results of population biology into his methodology.
> -- 
> sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
>   or
> Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins