HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:11:52 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>I, personally, have
>witnessed numerous untruths on the local Creationist TV show.

Speak of the Devil. After posting that, I turned on the TV and there
was the Creationist show. I think the guest lecturer was named Dennis
Lindsay.

I arrived during the explanation that scientists are atheists, and
that they pick and distort and chemically alter evidence in order to
support their rigid, fixed idea that the Earth is billions of years
old. 

No names or details, of course. Just "scientists" do this. In short,
we're all liars, and we're all in on the lie.

Next, geometric growth. Apparently, Noah's children, extrapolated to
today's population, gives a nice 1/2 percent per year growth rate.
The fact that this is historically insupportable wasn't mentioned: I
guess ancient Greece and Egypt just wrote lies about their census
figures. Plus, of course, "scientists" have no explanation for the
fact that such growth, across the million years that the scientists
say Man has lived, would result in (he said) 10^130 humans alive
today. No, he said, "scientists" haven't even noticed this simple
and convincing disproof of evolution. 

Next, the decaying magnetic field. The lecturer apparently thinks
that decay is inevitable - that a permanent magnet loses its strength
in a year or so. He did have the grace to mention that scientists
hold that the Earth's field fluctuates. However, he stated the
whopping untruth that we have no reason for this theory.

But then, I'm used to whoppers from these dimbulbs. That and
innuendo seem to be their stock in trade. 

-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mongo@PDaXcess.techbook.com (Mongo)
Subject: Mr. Bales claims not to have heard
Organization: Portland Public Access sponsored by TECHbooks Bookstore
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:43:07 GMT

Bob Bales has claimed that no one has refuted the points that
he has made about how scales could have evolved into feathers.
I find this puzzling, since I posted this to the net, from
the same city, with his name prominently featured in the
subject line.
 
Bob, this is a refutation of your claim that feathers and
scales arise from different skin layers. Please retract the
claim above.
 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
 
Bob Bales claimed a few weeks ago  that  bird  feathers  and
lizard  scales  'came  from different skin layers' and hence
feathers could not have evolved from scales.  Unfortunately,
that  does not match up with the data I have here before me:
(detailed reference at end of article) - perhaps  you  could
supply me with a more detailed reference for your assertion?
 
     "Skin consists of two layers, a  superficial  epidermis
     derived  from the embryonic ectoderm, and an underlying
     dermis derived from mesoderm. The development of scales
     or other epidermal structures depends on inductive sig-
     nals from the dermis." - pg 160
 
In other words, both grow from the epidermis, under the con-
trol  of  chemical  signals  from  the  dermis.  Here is the
interesting part: By grafting  lizard  epidermis  over  over
chick  and  mice  dermis,  the scales can be made to grow in
patterns corresponding to chick  feathers,  and  mouse  fur,
even  mouse  whiskers - the code for the actual structure of
hair and feather is not there, but the embryonic  signalling
system is so similar that:
 
     "Lizard epidermis  responds  to  chick  tarsometatarsal
     dermis  to  produce  large  scales indistinguishable in
     appearance and arrangement from  chick  tarsometatarsal
     scales.  Lizard  epidermis  responds  to  chick  dorsal
     dermis, which in chicks determines the arrangement  and
     morphology  of  feathers.  However, lizard epidermis is
     unable to interpret the specific  signals  for  feather
     morphogenesis.    Instead,   the   epidermis   produces
     arrested scales arranged in a typical hexagonal feather
     pattern.  In  a  like manner, lizard epidermis combined
     with mouse dermis forms not hair, but  abortive  scales
     arranged in typical mouse hair patterns..." [page 162]
 
So: not only are feathers and fur coming from the same layer
of  skin, they respond to the SAME DEVELOPMENTAL CONTROLS in
the embryo. What a coincidence.
 
        Regards,
                Max G. Webb
 
_Embryos, Genes, and Evolution_, Rudolf Raff and Thomas Kaufman,
(c) 1983 Rudolf Raff and Thomas Kaufman, Macmillan Publishing Company.

--
mongo@PDaXcess.techbook.com (Mongo) (Public Access User)
PDaXcess gives free access to news & mail. (503) 644-8135 - 1200/2400, N81  
Send to info@techbook.com for more information.
Public access users are <NOT> affiliated with TECHbooks.
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Great paper
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:00:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.c_xj9bk
Distribution: na
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Apr13.131959.11324@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>
>Mr. Squires has asked me for an apology, and I freely offer it.

Apology gladly accepted.  Thank you very much!  :) :)

BTW, Mr. Siemon, you had a very good point about the importance of
null hypotheses, correlation, and their importance in evaluating the
validity of an argument.  Why not write a FAQ on the subject?

Especially if you can make it apply to biology, where Creationists make
the argument that Evolution theory makes no predictions, etc, especially
when much in biology appears to be fuzzy and mathematical procedures (which
are so powerful in inanimate physical systems) do not seem to apply.

As a specific example, here is a paper that my brother the ecology student
gave me a few years ago to read
	Body size and Coexistence in Desert Rodents:
	Chance or Community Structure?
	Bowers and Brown,
	Ecology 63(2), 1982, p391-400
This article specifically addresses the use of null hypotheses as a method
of arriving at truth, and if I understand the situation surrounding its
publication correctly, many researchers had been saying that a given
causal explanation could just as well be explained with any of several
other causes.

This clearly is a key issue, and (I think) has direct impact on the
argument Mr. Brinkman had concerning Occam's Razor.  Though that by itself
is incomplete, but in combination with the use of null hypotheses...?
A good FAQ on modern Scientific Method would be a worthy project, IMHO.

Anyway,...Hmmm...it *is* a nice day out there...
I think I wil take a walk before class...

>Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:49:55 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>>I have a video tape of some of these scientists saying exactly what
>>Sunderland communicates in his book.

>I doubt it.

Get the video and see for yourself, "The Evolution Conspiracy,"
available from the ICR in El Cajon, California. I believe the
area code is 619.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: davew@hp-ptp.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:42:51 GMT
Subject: Re: evolution of sex (addendum)
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.
Newsgroups: talk.origins

This is an absolutely fascinating thread. Thanks, Chris, for the
original detailed and quite well written article that stimulated this
discussion.

As such, I am pondering several aspects of sexual reproduction. One
question that comes to mind that I'd like to hear thoughts on (Chris?)
is, why did sexual reproduction develop in a bipolar manner? It seems to
me that recombination opportunities would be more efficient if sexual
organisms were entirely symmetric, and could exchange genetic
information with any other member of the species, not just the opposite
sex.

As you have pointed out, there are some species that operate in this
manner (monogametes was the term, I believe). Yet, they seem to be a
tiny minority, so I assume that there would be some selective advantage
to bipolarism in a species, yet I can't come up with a scenario in my
own imagination to substantiate this reality.

Dave Waller
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: The Historical Jesus 
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:58:34 GMT

Please remove talk.origins from the Newsgroups for this thread.
I don't think that it belongs in talk.origins.

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Subject: Re: Single Source versus Dispersed Source Evolutionism
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:09:20 GMT

dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: > 

> Just curious to know which position the experts today in the Theory
of Evolution happen to take:

Well, they would probably have some informed opinions, but the
question is not strictly about the theory of evolution.  Evolution is
only concerned with what happens after the beginning of life.
However, there are interesting ways to extend it so that it is
suggestive of ways abiogenesis could have taken place.


> Derek.
> 
> 
> PS. Is there an option I should have said, that I forgot?

I would suggest:

j) many different proto-organisms at many varying levels of complexity
   and fitness came into being, possibly with many developing the
   ability to self-replicate.  All current life is descended from one
   of these, which gained some crucial advantage over the others and
   rapidly dominated the world.

and:

k) many different proto-organisms at many varying levels of complexity
   and fitness came into being, possibly with many developing the
   ability to self-replicate.  One or two kooky one-celled animals
   living somewhere in the world are descended from one or another of
   these, with the rest the descendents of only one lineage.

Don't forget that no one is claiming that life came into being in a
single random event.  Life-like qualities (like containment by a
membrane, reproduction, selective incorporation of surrounding
particles, etc.) could have been selected for for millions of years.
-- 
*Eric Shafto             * The longer I live the more I see I am never    *
*Institute for the       * wrong about anything, and that all the pains I *
*    Learning Sciences   * have so humbly taken to verify my notions have *
*Northwestern University * only wasted my time.          --G. B. Shaw     *
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: if you gotta screw up...
Summary: ... screw up big
Keywords: oops
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:24:00 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: animal,coelomate,deuterostome,chordate

In article <83702@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby) writes:

>On the other hand,
>if you believe Gould, there was more diversity in the Cambrian
>than now because several unique phyla went extinct (and I don't
>think any new phyla have evolved since then -- but I could be
>wrong).

	Ooooooooops, I am of course ignoring an entire _Kingdom_ that
evolved since the Cambrian. We know 'em; we love 'em -- we call them
plants. Prior to the evolution of plants, photosynthesizing protists
were the bottom of the food web.
	
	Since I was talking about Gould I was only thinking about
animals.

Chris Colby	email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu
"And will our voices be heard/Or will they break like the wind"
-Spinal Tap
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:08:05 GMT

In article <1e7L02r7c5PX00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com
(Jim Loucks) quotes from "Darwin's Enigma" by Luther Sunderland.

> In these interviews, the paleontologists [Colin Patterson, Niles
> Eldredge, David Raup, David Pilbeam, Donald Fisher] were questioned
> in detail about the nature of the fossil record from the deepest
> deposits containing fossils to the most recent. ...
>
> If information about the true nature of the fossil record, so 
> vividly described in these interviews, were to be presented without
> bias in public school textbooks, there would be no need for over
> half of the state legislatures to be considering legislation
> requiring open academic inquiry into the teaching of theories on
> origins. It is not so much a problem of failing to include in 
> textbooks the simply factual statements that there is an alternative
> to evolution theory - which is accepted by the majority of the
> public - that a Supernatural Power created the universe and first
> life. Rather, the main issue is that textbooks and other school
> materials are completely devoid of certain very significant 
> scientific information which is talked about behind closed doors
> but not made available to the public. Should the information 
> presented in this book be openly discussed in public education,
> the controversy would be defused and cease to be the hottest
> issue in public education.

What "very significant scientific information" -- that real science is
more complicated than it appears in high school textbooks?

It would focus the discussion if you would clearly describe just one of
Sunderland's points.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Chris screws the pooch wrt marsupials
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:31:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: bu.84173
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome


	O.K., so I f@#$#d up in my post about marsupials. As it 
turns out, there are still plenty of rodent-like marsupials in
Australia (you can't call them rodents because rodents is a 
placental term). Among the small furries in Australia are quolls,
tasmanian devils, antechinuses (antecheni?),phascogales,dunnarts
planigales as well a marsupial mole. I had claimed that introduced
placentals had wiped them out. The common house mouse (Mus musculus)
-- a placental -- does inhabit all of Australia and the common and
Norway rats -- also placentals -- are common near the shore. But,
there are still numerous rodent-like niches being filled by
marsupials. Apologies to any small, fuzzie creature I may have
offended.

	I also claimed that marsupials fossils were "found
everywhere" or something unbearably vague like that. It turns out
the heaviest concentrations of fossils outside Australia are in
North and South America. 

	I'd like to thank Peter Lamb for pointing out I was 
clearly out of touch with reality wrt my knowledge of marsupials.
(I'll have to figure out if the pooch I screwed was a placental
or not 8-) 

	In the same post I claimed (I out to frame that one 8-)
that echolocation in bats (found only in microchiroptera) was
evidence of diphyly in bats. An e-mail correspondent pointed out
to me that this was incorrect - it only supports monophyly of
microbats. Ooops, guess I should get a new brain (or perhaps
let mine warm up before I post) This same emailer suggested a
party for Boston area t.o.ers. I think that sounds like a cool
idea. Does anyone else agree? Maybe we could meet at the Sunset
Grill (a great beer bar) or something.
 
	So, in summary -- I'm stupid. Ignore everything I say.

Chris "placental" 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 (another placental) from "Galapagos"
From: rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: biologic diversity since the Cambrian
Keywords: scientific creationism
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:42:16 GMT
Organization: SMDS Inc., Concord, MA

In article <83702@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.124012.1268@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:

> >At least since Cambrian times (please correct me if I am 
> >wrong here, this is just a layman's opinion) there has been no 
> >overall increase in the complexity of life on earth.

> 	I don't think there is really a consensus on this.

I gather, than, that there is a diversity of opinion on the matter.
:-)

-- 
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.
From: matth@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Matthew Hannigan)
Subject: Re: Coffin Creation Seminar Part II
Organization: AODC, but I don't speak for them.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:21:46 GMT

In article <83793@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby) writes:
>
>	"His" conclusion is the conclusion of evolutionary biologists
>also. Marsupial fossils are found all over the globe, but are later 
>replaced by placental fossils. It is tempting to argue (and few
>paleontologists have resisted the temptation) that placentals out-
>competed marsupials because they were competitively superior. 

STOP PRESS! Just recently, an Australian biologist discovered a tooth
from an ancient mammal in Australia, which he has used as evidence
that this mammal had lost in the competition with marsupials.

Sorry for the lack of details .. I will post them if you ask.
(By email)

-Matt
matth@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
This is a signature virus.  Or is it?  Try it and see.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:59:43 GMT

jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:

>No flame for anyone here, but some evolutionists are godless, while
>others are atheists, some may even be communists, or a combination
>of the three, who am I to say? Something I will "judge" about
>everyone, is that they are scum, not! 

And some evolutionists are theists, some may even be Republicans or
a combination, who am I to say? Some people are scum, and some are
not, and some Christians disagree witn evolution because Biblical
authority is fundemental to their faith, and some do not, So what?
Sometimes Jim Loucks is a lout and sometimes he is not, and
P and ~P is true.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus 283-4283)
Subject: Re: biologic diversity since the Cambrian
Keywords: biology, complexity, diversity
Organization: MDSSC
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:01:42 GMT

In article <83986@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|> ...taxonomic units are just
|> human abstractions, not a real unit of anything. Is an order of
|> arthropods with five families as diverse as an order of ascomycetes
|> (a phylum of fungus) with five families? I would doubt it. In order
|> to answer the question, some clear cut definition of diversity
|> would need to be put forward. And, since diversity would necessarily
|> to be a function of the complexity of the various individuals within
|> a taxa -- complexity would also need a clear definition.
 
|> 	Maybe someone has worked this out and I'm just ignorant of
|> that field, but I can't for the life of me understand how you would
|> measure (or define) complexity. I'll ask an easy question. Let's
|> say you have a human being and a bacterium (E. Coli); which is
|> more complex and why? What objective criteria can you establish to
|> show that humans are more complex than bacteria (or vice versa if
|> you wish 8-)?

	Chris, I'm surprised to hear this from a biologist.  (Did you write
this?  I may be getting attributions mixed up.)  I can easily think of
a very simple, objective measure of complexity--the number of proteins
that are directly coded in the DNA.  Alternately, we can just say "the
number of genes".  This may not always result in the intuitive order of
complexity, but it is certainly meaningful and objective.
	Diversity is a much bigger problem.  It gets into two distinct areas,
possibly more: (1) biochemical diversity, and (2) structural diversity.
The first is probably somewhat easier to track, since it is "digital"
(i.e., you can't change less than one amino acid in a protein, or one
nucleotide in nucleic acid) rather than "analog" (a bone can lengthen by
1", or 1/2", or 1/4", right on down to the point of becoming statistically
meaningless).  I'm not sure how to deal with this.

	-Keith Mancus <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Sauropods: Swimmers or Stompers?   Source Suggestions Solicited.
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:22:27 GMT
Reply-To: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <csqj!b_@lynx.unm.edu> rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu 
     (Roger Squires) writes:

>So, what's my point?  Well, the flip-flopping on theories does not
>bother me (in fact it is a positive sign), but I am interested in
>tracing a little more the complete turn-around from the late seventies
>to today on this swimming sauropod silliness.  If the sage
>saurological superluminaries out there

Well, I'm not one of those, but I can point you to a couple of places
that might be of interest.

Probably the best person I can think of for you to look into while
trying to trace back this controversy would be R. McNeil Alexander.
He wrote a book (whose title escapes me at the moment) in the last
year or two, and he also wrote an article for SciAm (it was a cover
story ca May 1991).  In the reference list of Christopher McGowan's
1991 book _Dinosaurs, Spitfires and Sea Dragons_ (which might also be
of use to you) is:

Alexander, R. McN. (1976).  "Estimates of Speeds of Dinosaurs",
     Nature, 261:129-130.

>could bestow some more references where I could look at how the change
>in outlook came about, and indeed on current models of Sauropods, and 
>like subjects, I would be very appreciative.  Books are rarer than 
>dinosaur eggs in this library, so 'zine suggestions would be good
>too.

My suggestion is that you try to find the Scientific American article
first.  I'm pretty sure that I'm not off by more than a month or so,
and the cover has drawings of a Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops.  

One final caveat.  If you do read Alexander's stuff, take his speed
calculations with a grain of salt.  This is a hotter controversy than
the swimming thing at the moment.  Balancing opinions can be found in
McGowan's book, and almost anything written by R.T. Bakker on the
subject of speed.  Someone wrote a letter to the editor of SciAm (in
the August issue, I think) criticizing them for not including any
opposing viewpoints along with Alexander's (who wrote his article as
if none of it was in contention...)

I haven't read this, but I suspect that you'll find some useful
material in the latest version of Bakker's _The Dinosaur Heresies_,
published by William Morrow and Co. in 1986.  

If your library doesn't have any of these books, you should ask the
librarian if they can access interlibrary loan...

>Roger Squires
>rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)