HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adpeters@ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew D. Peters)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Single Source versus Dispersed Source Evolutionism
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:23:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1992Apr17.172323.4692
Organization: Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, Indiana University

In article <1992Apr14.022257.7888@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, 
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:
> 
> [list of options]

As a quickie answer to your question, option (a):

> (a) Some elements randomly combined to produce ONE life unit that was
> capable of replicating iteself. All life originates from this unique unit.
> [Single Source].

is probably the most widely accepted answer.  Given the nearly complete 
identity of the "genetic code" of all extant organisms, it is extremely
unlikely that these organisms arise from disparate ultimate sources.

This is not to say, however, that there were not other "life units" in the
very early evolution of life.  It is very possible that there were other such
"life units" but that the one which gave rise to the extant organisms was 
simply the quickest replicator, or the most efficient "competitor" for 
whatever resources might have been limiting at the time, etc. Therefore I 
offer you option 

(j) Elements combined to produce several (even many) life units capable of 
replicating themselves.  Some sort of "proto-life" begins to emerge from each
of these, and all of the various forms of proto-life (if you'll forgive the
allusion) are fruitful and multiply.  However, one proves to be more efficient
than the others in some manner, and therefore becomes the most abundant form.
Eventually efficiency begins to matter, and the most efficient/abundant form
"outcompetes" the others.  All subsequent life originates from this (already 
diverging) form.

However, I should emphasize that there is disagreement regarding this subject.
Therefore, to cover my butt, I should say that another possible answer to your
question would have been a _qualified_:

> (i) There is no accepted position because of unresolved debate.
> [Source Unresolved]


Andy Peters                     |
                                |
Program in Ecology, Evolution,  |  "Nothing in biology makes any sense
and Behavior                    |			without evolution"
                                |   -Ernst Mayr
Department of Biology           |		 (maybe a misquote, but you get the idea)
                                |
Indiana University              |
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Relevance of 'The Historical Jesus' to T.O.
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:03:47 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

While this particular thread doesn't deal with creation science, per se, it
does have a lot to do with the interpretation of scripture in ways that
have direct impact on creationism.

From the perspective of biblical criticism, creationist cosmology is a
sort of reworked version of ancient Canaanite, Babylonian, and Persian
cosmology (the 'reworking' is doing what amounts to a weird form of
exegesis to try to make it consistent with physics, geology, etc).  Since
creation science depends on that kind of interpretation of scripture, it
seems reasonable that one of the issues that has bearing is the source and
transmission of scripture... its just a part of the equation...

The theological problem of the historical Jesus hits to the core of the
issue of biblical exegesis, even if it does not touch on the details of
Babylonian creation myths.


Dan
From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:03:06 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> > > So could African Elephants occupy cold regions? Did they like a number of
> > > African species formerly occupy Europe?
> > > Andrew Taylor
> 
> > I'm not sure where he got his elephants, but don't forget that Hannibal
> > crossed the Alps with them.
>  
> > Sue
> 
> You read lots of history, don't you, Sue?  All but a small handful of those
> elephants died due to the hardwhips of being hauled and winched through
> those mountains, and that handful died shortly thereafter.  Hannibal's 
> strengths were his Spainish and Numidean cavalry groups;  the elephants were
> a total non-factor.

You read lots of logic texts, don't you, Ted?  Did they die of the
*cold*?  No one is suggesting that the Mammoths were killed by an
increase in the felt effect of winching.  Not even Velikovsky.


-- 
*Eric Shafto             * Sometimes, I think we are alone.  Sometimes I  *
*Institute for the       * think we are not.  In either case, the thought *
*    Learning Sciences   * is quite staggering.                           *
*Northwestern University *     -- R. Buckminster Fuller                   *
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:25:01 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

isaak@imagen.com (mark isaak) writes:
>In article <9dbs02b=ce5v00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>>What I find interesting is that all but Patterson made editorial 
>>changes prior to making the documents available to be used in textbooks.
>>What did they change and why?

>Why do you find it so interesting? 

Somebody posted an article that Patterson didn't want to edit the
transcripts because he said they were a mess. What I printed from
microfiche was anything but a mess, rather it's very readable. 

Along with Patterson, the others interviewed claimed that Sunderland
misquoted them. What I'd really be interested in knowing, is what 
they changed from Sunderland's transcripts. Was it what you mention
below, or something else? Before you answer that question, you might
want to read the transcripts.

> When I post articles to the net,
>more often than not I make changes to them after typing the original
>version.  Some of the changes are to correct grammar and spelling, but
>most of them restructure sentences to make (I hope) my ideas clearer.
>And I put a lot more thought into what I write than what I say.  If I
>had a chance to clarify some of the obtuse things which have come out
>of my mouth, I would jump at the chance. 

Understood.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Historical Jesus
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:33:31 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <0adHohmm6@cs.psu.edu>, 
kiledal@lisp.cs.psu.edu (Erik Kiledal) writes:
> In the posting by Roger Squires with the subject "The Historical Jesus", 
> Squires writes about the New Testament.  
> Roger: 
>>I would be willing to grant you that there was an actual person named
>>Jesus who was crucified in Palestine...
> 
> Roger, what are you going to do about the fact that Jesus died for you?

Even if this is a "fact" what makes you think he has to "do" anything about
it?
 
> Erik Kiledal				| kiledal@cs.psu.edu
> The Norwegian Institute of Technology   | "Nietzsche is dead" 
> Computer Science			| - God
>  
>>Roger Squires
>>rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:43:56 GMT

In article <387s02rJc9fU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
Loucks) writes:
>
>  Morris was a little surprised from the reaction I received in talk.origins. 
>  He was only trying to communicate that some evolutionists admit that
>  there is some sort of a problem in reference to dating rocks according
>  to the fossils they contain. He just wanted to say that someone
>  has admitted to the problem, and that to verify the results, certain
>  physical evidence must be found elsewhere in the strata. Morris didn't 
>  intend to misquote anyone as he was only trying to make a point.
> 
> I think the problem definition is large. Most of the blame should be
> my own, for posting the article. Also, part of the blame could be your
> (talk.origins) experience with the ICR, past articles by creationists
> that you've found irritating, and many other factors that I won't go
> into for now.
> 
> For myself, after hearing Morris' response, I've come to the conclusion
> that Morris didn't communicate his motives well enough for the audience
> to understand what he was trying to say.

   His motives were irrelevant.  His butchering of someone else's material
to completely reverse the meaning is _not_ a proper way to show "some
scientists think there are problems...".  Jim, you are rationalizing away
a knowing, intentional lie by one of your allies.

   It is inconcievable that someone could so carefully invert the meaning 
of a passage "by accident" no matter what their motives.  The ICR is a 
bunch of lying, cheating, assholes and you've decided that your beliefs 
are so important to you you would rather accept a halfassed nonexplaination
than face the truth.

   Peruse this weeks science magazine, page 173, "California Evolution Defender
Indicted" for an example of the kind of slime your limp acceptance of
falsehoods is supporting.  The cretionists are doing _anything_, _any_ _dirty_
_trick_ _in_ _the_ _book_ to GET Bill Honig.  Since their attempts to put
creationism across are ileagle (establishment clause) and immoral (they neglect
the truth when convienient), it is no surprise they are now resorting to
unethical means to put their program across.  They are digging up dirt on their
opponents to tie them up and keep them from having a fair say in a public
debate.

   You've let me down, Jim.  I thought your sense of justice might lead you
out of the snake pit you're in, but instead you've decided you _like_ kissing
cobras.

> Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
> {apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

Disgusted Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: xrhah@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Herbert A. Huston)
Subject: Re: Coffin Seminar Creation Seminar
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:22:00 GMT

In article <83791@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby) writes...
>In article <1992Apr06.162833.28517@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com> ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford) writes:

I deleted some stuff.

>>5. Showed a slide of a bat that appears to demonstrate that bats have 
>>changed very little in the last 10 million years or so.  He then quotes 
>>George Gaylord Simpson as saying that evolution of the human lineage would 
>>take 10 billion years at that rate of change (no reference was given).
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	It doesn't bother me anymore that creationists want to believe
>in their own little fairy tale world; but the tactics these scum use 
>never fail to make me want to puke. George Gaylord Simpson was a
>very famous evolutionary biologist and would NEVER have lended any
>credence to garbage such as the above. To quote a dead guy so that
>he appears to be supporting a side of an argument that he would never
>have in life is despicable. You truly have to be devoid of morals to
>pull something like that. (I thought creationists argued that teaching
>evolution led to a decrease in moral fiber; you don't see evolutionists
>pulling this kind of crap.)

"... We no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with the
deep problems: Is there a meaning to life?  What are we for?  What
is man?  After posing the last of these questions, the eminent
zoologist G.G. Simpson put it thus: 'The point I want to make
now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are
worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them com-
pletely.'"

From the first paragraph of _The Selfish Gene_ by Richard Dawkins.  In 
the bibliography:

Simpson, G.G. (1966) The biological nature of man.  _Science_ 152, 
472-78.

-- Herb Huston
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Rice)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Respect for "Creationists"
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:55:04 PDT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc. (Public access BBS)

Tag: Lionel Tun
 
LT> "It has been noted here that t.o. is an unfriendly place. I am
LT> sad that this should be so and I would like to apologise for
LT> the contribution I have made to this state of affairs by
LT> offending people in my posts and thereby causing them to
LT> escalate the flame wars."
 
This is only a hostile place for lazy thinkers. A few years ago
there were a few "Creationists" who gained respect with their
very clear, well expressed views for "Creationism" and against
evolution. One in particular, a priest, did not try to decieve
us by claiming ignorance of science--- he made it very clear
that "creationism" is based on theology alone: something that
is refreshing to hear from a "creationist."
 
See, Mr. Tun, when someone hears the same refuted, disproven
claims over, and over, and over, and over again, people tend to
get a little short with the claimant. I took slight offence
when you made the opinion that those to study evolution and
do not reject it for "Creationism" are dishonest, or worse,
liars. Honestly, does this gain respect, or does it gain the
sense of hostility you feel?
 
LT> "I know of people who are nervous to start posting here, but
LT> I would like to encourage them to do so nevertheless. Meanwhile
LT> I am going to keep a lower profile until I finish work on my PhD.
LT> For future installments: I am intrigued by the Tierra program
LT> mentioned by Ray Ingles and I intend to look it out. Also in
LT> a few years time we will have more evidence for the human
LT> lifespan (120) debate. And there is plenty of mileage in
LT> the mutation question."
 
But you promised to post proof of "Creationism." This would be the
first time in humankind's entire history that someone actually had
proof. And now you're going to make the whole world wait for it?!?!
Why, the story about how you alone, out of billions of people,
throughout hundreds of thousands of years, came to posess this
evidence must be worth anything to hear, itsself.
 
>lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ABEND-038B:000C God Not Real: Universe Halted!

--  

David Rice
Internet: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A man shall be judged by the company he keeps
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:00:17 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <2715@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.063326.791@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> 
>> Let me get this straight?  Is Ted now claiming the 'halocaust' didn't happen?
>>
>
> Are you really that dense?  I was making an analogy between your own
> willingness to deny ancient history on the basis of your own bullshit
> interpretations of ice cores (i.e. on confusing snow storms with years)
> and people such as Winston who are denying more recent history on the
> basis of similar flawed theory.  
>
> Ted HOlden
>
> -- 
> HTE
> bear


Why attempt to draw such an analogy anyway? This is irrespective of whether
or not your analogy is a good one, although I personally believe it's crap.

Much better, surely, to draw attention politely and systematically to any
inconsistencies which you think you have found in the arguments of Bishop,
Hyde, Merritt et al, or between their interpretations of the evidence and
yours. And that stands even if you have at times been on the receiving end
of some choice words.

It also casts further doubt on your own position if, when asked to defend
it, you resort to drawing analogies between your opponents and nazis.

Such shooting from the hip looks more psychotic than scientific.


Cheers

Simon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every morning when you wake up and look in the mirror, check yourself
for signs of collective identity" - Consolidated on "This Is Fascism"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:12:52 GMT
Organization: SMDS Inc., Concord, MA

In article <9eDh02JYce2Q00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
> robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
> >The difference, that you asked for, is that special creation is
> >devoid of even a theory, or any evidence whatsoever...

> I think the real problem is that whatever evidence is presented, 
> isn't accepted in talk.origins. Because it isn't accepted doesn't
> mean it isn't evidence.

Now Jim, that really isn't so.  As the man said, calling a cow a horse
doesn't make it a horse.  Most of this "evidence" is readily seen to be
either misrepresentation or non sequitors.  In point of fact, the same
"evidence" keeps getting recycled -- the FAQ's are simply compilations
of refutations.

As T.O. regulars know, I side with the creationists from time to time,
sometimes just for fun, and sometimes to bridle in the more enthusiastic
evolutionismists [There is too such a word -- I just created it.].  And
I want to tell you it's not easy.  It's fairly easy to poke holes in the
more dogmatic assertions of T.O. regulars who, for the most part aren't
specialists in biology or geology.  It's deuced difficult to find real
holes in the actual science.

Let me put it to you this way:  Does it not occur to you that the
objections that you raise very likely have all been raised before
and discussed intensively as a matter of science?  Does it not occur
to you to look into the history of how the theory developed, what
arguments were raised, and how they were met -- even a little bit?

-- 
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: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org (Dr Pepper)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Lying
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 01:44:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:103/241 - GG Tech, Westminster CA

 > Organization: HTE
 > From: news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted "I am the world's biggest liar" Holden)
 > Message-ID: 2713@fedfil.uucp
 > Newsgroups: talk.origins


(long post where Ted congratulates various net posters on identifying his true character deleted)

Well said Ted. Now perhaps you will answer some of the questions you've been asked...


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| It's my government, i'll |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| badmouth it if i feel    | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| like it!                 | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
|                          | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Signet:     26:26/100                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+














 > --
 > HTE
 > bear

 > --- Squish v1.01
 >  * Origin: Universal Electronics Inc [714 939-6401] HST/DS
 > (1:103/208)

--  

Dr Pepper
Internet: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Wallabies (was: Re: Changing your mind)
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:53:19 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

In article <1992Apr6.182732.19984@infonode.ingr.com> knightb@knightb@clunker.b21.ingr.com (11642) writes:
>In article <1992Mar27.140249.4180@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
>Tun) writes:  (in response to Bruce Salem,  I think)
>
>>This wallably business illustrates how the term species is used
>>to support the theory of evolution. Surely a wallaby is still a
>>wallaby?
>
>>Lionel Tun
>
>I think something is being illustrated.  Maybe you'd like to 
>elaborate.  What makes a wallaby a wallaby?  
>
Doesn't this exchange illustrate several of the communication problems 
between creationists and scientists?

Lionel says "... a wallaby is still a wallaby" because Hawaiian 
wallabies *look* and *act* (so far as I know) like wallabies. But genetically
they are different from their australian relatives because they cannot
produce fertile offspring when interbred with them, and their diet includes
things that are poisonous to Australian wallabies.

Isn't a species a population which can interbreed and produce fertile 
offspring? That being so, the Hawaiian wallabies are a new species.

I think creationist propagandists give their audiences the impression
that species are truly well-defined and fixed, but scientists active
in the biological sciences regard them as empirical labels
for populations whose characteristics are changing. True, the changes in 
most cases are slow enough that it makes sense to have labels. But 
nevertheless they occur. I even once heard a creationist of Gish or Morris
stature say that biological nomenclature is not divinely ordained.  Too
bad they don't think about the implications...

Bill Hamilton
my own opinions...
>Brad
>knightb@abulafia.b21.ingr.com


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: The Myth Of Morality
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:31:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.151915.1546@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>I would like to point out that when a person turns to God and repents of
>their sins, they are forgiven completely and God does not remember their
>past transgressions any more. 

Unless, of course, you consider your God to be omniscient.  In which case
it's not true that God does not *remember* their past transgressions, but
rather that God does not *consider* their past transgressions in his/its
evaluation of them.

>I would suggest that where God has forgiven
>and forgotten it is not appropriate for anyone to dredge up the past.

...unless you're not attempting to evaluate whether or not they have
been forgiven by God.

In any case, the spirit of your message remains: it is more important
to consider a person's current behavior than their past behavior, in
most cases.

>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)