HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Darwinism is dead !
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:45:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.125856.22754@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
> >  To do this we need an objective measure of complexity.
>
>Sure, there are many species, including worms, flowers and amphibians that
have
>longer genomes than ourselves. But does any of them have more ACTIVE GENES? No,
I
>don't think so. Remember, (I have discussed this earlier a lot) more than 95%
of
>the genome in many "higher" species is junk-DNA. And that doesn't count when
you
>measure complexity. See my article just before this on complexity. Can anyone
>come up with species with more active genes than humans? That would be very
>interesting. If there are some, then some flowers, I think, would be a
candidate.
>They seem to duplicate the whole genome every now and then. But still these
"new"
>genes are inactive so they wouldn't count either, I think.

[sorry aout the formatting]

  Remember that genetic encoding is only partially morphology.  A large part
(maybe even the majority -- anyone out there that can give me a hand?) is the
encoding of chemical reactions.  There are alot of chemical reactions going on
in some creatures that have low complexity body shape, so dont' start
discounting them because the look less complex.

  I think any definition of complexity that uses DNA as an index is probably
going to contradict any "intuitive" definitions.

  Also, I think that there is probably some (small) selection factor for smaller
DNA (that is, trimming out the junk is probably a tiny bit better -- less chance
of the junk ever getting read by accident comes to mind).  Therefore, evolution
would seek some happy mean between too much junk, and too little junk (which
would increase the fatality rate of mutations).

  Since this is a theory, I better produce a testable prediction: Creatures in
similar habitats will have roughly the same ratio of "junk" DNA regardless of
inheritance.

  Hmm, lets be more concrete here.  The ratio of junk DNA for wilderbeasts and
lions should be closer than wilderbeasts and Yaks (whcih I believe are more
closely related).  Note that enough time since divergence must have passed for
the DNA junk to better suit the habitat, so I don't know if this is a perfect
test.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antti dodges reality (take two)
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:44:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct2.154025.11504@klaava.Helsinki.FI>,
cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) wrote:
> No, saying that you're ignorant (though I'd use the word stupid, because
> not only are you ignorant you don't want to learn) means just that.
> Means, what you say doesn't have much value.

...don't go so hard with Antti, he's our comedy relief.

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.
Xref: sparky talk.origins:12376 sci.skeptic:17301
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:28:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Sep30.021133.15072@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>
>We all know that all really cool supreme beings use Smalltalk.
>

  Well, years ago Smalltalk was chosen as the language dujor for
  embedded systems hear at Tek.  We've all seen what God's favor has
  meant for *this* company.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
	<1992Oct1.173532.3215@alc.com> <1992Oct2.120024.15852@cs.joensuu.fi>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:27:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.120024.15852@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>># Can you explain *what* the book has considered up to this point that
>># allows the author to conclude that Genesis is scientifically sound?

>>Antti Siivonen writes:
>>> Quite many. For instance the order life was created on earth. 

>>False.  Land plants ("day three") don't predate the Sun ("day four")
>>or fish ("day five").  Try again.

>	No, actually those refer to the visibility of sun. 
>-- 

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

>	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !


Visability to who?  Who was there to see it?  Either he made light or
he didn't.  Taking a literal interpretation God must of told someone
how he made it because no one else was around.  So what did he say?
"On day three I made the land plants and then, Oh, Oh yeah I forgot,
on dayt two I made this sun thing but I didn't let it shine on the
plants until day four because I wanted to water them first."

-Bill
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: a clarification
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:46:40 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <96882@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>
>In my response to McGrath, I included the above (now edited) diagram

While we're on the "clarification" thread, it seems only fair to point
out that Chris was responding not to Robert McGrath but to the creationist
position of Ken Mann.

By the way, has anybody heard from Mr. Mann lately? He seems to have.........
<sound of fate being tempted>

> Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Why Fossils Cannot be Used as Evidence for Evolution
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:38:51 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <BvorFq.Jzu@well.sf.ca.us>
keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>Creationists apparently think that if they can show that evolutionary
>science varies over time, and therefore is not absolute that it is
>somehow lacking.  Quite the contrary however, it is this very aspect
>of science that is its strength, its ability to self-correct and
>adapt to new evidence.  In fact, that creationism cannot do these
>things is one of the main reasons it is not scientific.  Now that the
>ICR seems wont to consider science as TRUTH (capitalization theirs),
>they couldn't be making it more clear that their understanding of
>science is completely confused by their understanding of religion and
>truth.

The problem of creationism is that ancient accounts of the creation
are taken as the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" when in
reality, they only contain part of the truth - God created the Earth
and everything on it - and the ancient accounts are not totally true -
they have been changed over time through translations and
transcribing.  Science, on the other hand, investigates how creation
was done: a very legitimate and enlightening study.

Mark
-- 
   Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator
but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates
are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within
the existing scientific tradition. -- Thomas S. Kuhn
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Morals, Family and Religion (was worthless comic strips)
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:19:00 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <17520050@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson) writes:
|
|      First off, let's establish that not all religions are guilt-based. 
|That is mostly Christianity. One must earn one's way into Jehovah's graces. 

No, it is mostly certain *sects* of Christianity and Judaism.
Other Christian sects, the ones that pay more attention to the mercy and
grace passages in the Bible, downplay guilt, and deny earning a place
in heaven altogether.  (Actually, all Christian sects *officially* take
the latter line, but many do not do much to encourage it in practice).

|      I would certainly say, though, that Christianity seems to be a religion
|meant explicitly for those who are afraid to think for themselves. No moral 
|or ethical dilemmas: everything is black and white. One is told what to do --
|in fact ordered to obey rather than to develope any analytical skills wiht
|which to make decisions. 

Only in certain extreme varieties.
Other Christian groups, and theologies, emphasize individual responses
to God.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: evolution and natural selection
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:38:35 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)

In article <BvGn3G.AC8.2@cs.cmu.edu>, kck+@cs (Karl Kluge) writes:
>> evolution: a change in the gene pool of a population over time

>Since neither Darwin or Wallace knew anything about genes or alleles,
>I will admit to a certain discomfort with this definition.

For that matter, Darwin and Wallace didn't write about "evolution" either.
If they used that word, it was in the original "to roll out" sense only.

I don't understand why there should be the slightest discomfort here.
Joule didn't know anything about statistical mechanics either, but that
doesn't seem to be grounds for confusion or discomfort in modern physics.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:15:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.114457.24720@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> 
> Pick up a copy of `Only Love Can Make A Miracle' by
> Mahesh Chavda, published by Kingsway. There are cases
> of people with _no eyeballs_ having their sight
> restored. There is also a picture of the signed death
> certificate of a boy who died and whom God restored to
> life.

	OOOOOOO, a signed death certificate! I have a set of
paperwork from a local hospital listing me as dead: miracle,
or clerical error?

	My maternal grandfather turned up 30 years after being
declared dead: miracle or artifact of the way the legal system
treats people who go missing during world wars?

	It isn't that hard to be declared dead without the actual
experience of dying.  

						James Nicoll
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antti's File of "Nonr
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:50:36 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <5818.170.uupcb@ssr.com> jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) writes:
>-> Is there anyone out there who knows if AS is any more lucid in Finnish?
>-> 
>-> Because he seems to be completely missing the boat in using English for
>-> his weapon.  I find it more than a little difficult to respond to anything
>-> he writes because it is uniformly non-sequitor.  Giving him the benefit
>-> of the doubt, maybe it is just the language barrier.
>-> 
>-> Maybe he could post in Finnish and someone could translate.  It couldn't
>-> be any worse than this.
>
>If you're serious about this, I'll volunteer my services...  Unless someone
>in Finland could do it and thus cut down on the time between the posting of
>the original and the translation, I'm in the US and it takes approx two
>days for mail from Finland to get here.
>
>No Antti, kiinnostaako ta"ma" idea?  (Systeemini ei pida" a"sta" ja o"sta")

My advice: don't bother. His Finnish is certainly superior to his
English, but his posts in the Finnish evolution discussion group
indicates that his thinking is just as bad no matter what language he
uses.
-- 
-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
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Differing accounts of creation in Genesis
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:43:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.131900.904@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>	Emphasis on the man and woman is seen in several ways.  We notice
>almost at once that the chronological sequence followed so clearly in
>Genesis 1, with its succession of seven key days, is dropped and a more
>topical sequence is adopted.  Of course, some critical scholars have pointed
>to the order of things in Genesis 2 as being evidence that the two creation
>"accounts" are contradictory:  the first gives one order for things, the 
>second gives a different order.  But this is surely nonsense.  If you take
>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."
>
>	The nice thing about this book is that he does address virtually
>every question that has been raised theologically in regard to Genesis
>1-11.  You may not agree with Boice's resolution, but he doesn't ignore
>these types of questions.
>
>	Jim Acker
>	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

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.

The more reasonable and more easily defensible position 
is that the two stories contradict each other.
"Explaining" contradictions by doing a Boice dance 
is not adequate.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:49:37 GMT

In article <42@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> 1.  We no longer have such creatures, and there must be a reason for that.

  Yeah: they died.

> 2.  The only creature with a neck even remotely similar to a sauropod's in
>     our world is the giraffe, and he holds his neck up for two very good 
>     reasons:

  And what about when he lowers his neck?

> 3.  Simple calculations, as I have noted, show an impossible strength
>     requirement for a sauropod to hold his head out vertically in our
>     world, perceived gravity being what it is now.

  If the calculations are so simple, why don't you ever post them?

[the rest deleted, althoug it does put a final nail in the coffin of any
suspicion Ted may know anything about mechanical engineering]

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:17:04 GMT

In article <BRUCE.92Sep30153607@suprenum.supr.scm.liv.ac.uk> bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>Similarly (as any biologist should know) evolution
>is not the same as pure chance; it entails selection.  The selection
>is much less effective than either Dawkins' analogy or the dice
>analogy, but it's there all the same: if you ignore it, you're
>ignoring an essential part of evolutionary theory, and you wouldn't
>want to do that, would you?

Actually, I don't think it's a given that the selection is "much less
effective".  In your case, you are selecting for a series of 6s on
dice, where there is only one "viable" combination you are selecting
for.  Evolution selects from millions of viable combinations.  The
ratio of viable to unviable combinations is not known, but the larger
the number of unviable combinations there are, the "more effective" you
could say evolution is.  Evolution can only pick viable combinations
out of however many there are.

Keith
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Mr. Creationist starts a business
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:51:22 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <ksand-220992184505@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>Would that help them to start
>working with for instance bio-engineering, assume that miracles
>will happen in their test tubes before the final deadline of the
>project?

I wonder if any agricultural company will ever form and hire
creationists as their biologists. I could just see them
inventing some new pesticide and telling farmers, "No, insects
will never evolve resistance to this -- the second law of thermo
doesn't allow evolution. Besides, mutations are all bad... What do
mean, 'Have I ever heard of DDT?'... wait come back!... Darn, he's
gone. I forgot to tell him he doesn't have to worry about over-
watering his corn crop; according to flood geology, flowering
plants uprooted themselves and migrated to the highest ground
during the flood."

>Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)

Chris Colby
email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Progressive Creationism Part 6
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 6 Oct 1992 00:09 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <91243@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>, hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50) writes...
>2.  The assertions found here and there about how evolution is ruled out:
> 
>Politics. The young-earth view is incredibly powerful in conservative 
>Christianity. Even a person of Boice's stature could be damaged by
>openly opposing it. It seems to me that once you allow progressive
>creation or the day-age theory (which is Young's position), then you've
>agreed that the geologists' time scale is correct, that different
>sorts of creatures appeared at different times, and that later
>creatures seem to have been developed using characteristics of earlier
>creatures as as a starting point, 
>possibly in response to changing environmental
>conditions.  Now the question is just *how* did these changes occur, and

I'm presently reading Ronald Numbers' _The Creationists_, and was quite
surprised to find that things used to be quite the reverse, up until around
the 1920's or later.  That is, old-earthers were quite dominant, except in
the Seventh Day Adventist crowd, whose influence through George McCready
Price led to today's creationism.  Several early U.S. creationist organizations
were split over heated battles between Price-following flood geologists
and day-age and gap theorists.

>3.  The mention of the Paluxy "mantracks":
> 
>Proves that even scholars like Boice sometimes fall victim to the
>credulity which conservative Christians are too prone to. No excuse.
>He should have checked his information. 

Speaking of the Paluxy tracks, the most recent issue of _Origins Research_
features an article by Glen Kuban addressing (and debunking) the Kayenta
dinosaur/alleged human tracks (near Tuba City, Arizona), which were recently
promoted in the _Creation Research Society Quarterly_.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution Exhibits
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:34:30 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct5.095644.17818@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|
|   |--- Protostomes (annelids, arthropods, mollusks)
|---|
|   |   |--- Brachiopods, bryozoans
|   |---|
|       |--- Deuterostomes (echinoderms, chordates)

Not as much as you might think: the lophophorate phyla (brachiopods,
bryozoans, and an obscure group called the phoronids) are generally
considered to be more or less intermediate between the protostomes and
the deuterostomes.

The main argument, actually, would be whether the protostomes are really
a unified group, or just a hodge-podge of distant relatives united on the
basis of shared ancestral characters.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:06:46 GMT
	<1992Sep24.201025.18334@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Sep28.185351.19420@cs.joensuu.fi>
	<BRUCE.92Sep30153607@suprenum.supr.scm.liv.ac.uk>
	<1992Oct1.134258.23953@cs.joensuu.fi>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 1 Oct 92 13:42:58 GMT, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) said:

> bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>>You seem to be ignoring selection.  Dawkins quite clearly states that
>>his program uses selection, and discusses how this relates to natural
>>selection.  

> 	He ignored it himself - correctly - in this case: When the life
> 	was supposed to evolve there was no selection, just like you mix n 
> 	chemicals - no selection.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis.
I think there's still lots of debate about how life originally got
started; personally I feel reasonably happy that one or other of the
current suggestions are pretty close to the truth.  For example, the
model which starts with crystals in clay (if I remember correctly), in
which case even the production of primitive biochemical molecules can
use ideas of selection.

--
Bruce Stephens