HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:35:09 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

With regard to the JW book _Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?_,

In article <1992Sep7.101721.25905@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>
>>Many of us on t.o have read this book.  We are not impressed.
>
>	Please, explain !
>-- 
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>

I've done quite a bit of research into the claims made in the first 5 chapters
of this book, and found that roughly half the quotations misrepresent an issue
in some manner.  I believe others have done the same.  Here is a list of a few:

1. Creationists are quoted as if they are expounding a scientific view when
   they are actually giving their religious view.  _Life's_ readers are not
   told the quotations are from creationists.
2. Encyclopedias are selected by year so as to give the most favorable quotation,
   rather than using the latest version.
3. Genesis and science are claimed to agree on the order of creation of life.
4. Authors are quoted out of context, often making them appear to say what the
   context clearly shows they did not.
5. It relies on its readers' ignorance of science to get away with statements
   such as `no transitional life forms have ever been found'.  Since the term
   `transitional' is never defined it can mean anything the author wants.
   This allows forms intermediate in structure, such as Archaeopteryx, to
   be dismissed as examples of transitional forms.
6. Outdated reference material is quoted when newer material would not support
   _Life's_ argument.
7. Many simple errors of fact are made.
8. Much of the strongest evidence for evolution is never discussed at all.
9. The evidence that life is extremely old, both from radioisotope dating
   methods and general geological methods, is dismissed with a few sentences
   (mis)quoted from _Popular Science_ magazine.  The magazine is called
   a `scientific journal'.
10. Almost no actual fossil or geological data is discussed, but rather
   quotations are made so as to obscure from naive readers what is really
   being talked about.

While I don't completely agree with the following quotation, the _Life_
book is a an excellent illustration of it:

"A long acquaintance with the literature of the Witnesses leads one to the
conclusion that they live in the intellectual `twilight zone.'  That is, most
of their members, even their leaders, are not well educated and not very
intelligent.  Whenever their literature strays onto the fields of philosophy,
academic theology, science or any severe mental discipline their ideas at best
mirror popular misconceptions, at worst they are completely nonsensical."
[Millions Now Living Will Never Die: A Study of Jehovah's Witnesses; Alan
Rogerson; Constable; London; 1969; p. 116]
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 10 Sep 92 10:16:54 GMT
Organization: City University, London

mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.033743.24872@morrow.stanford.edu>,
>salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) complains:
>
>> In article <135665@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
>
>> >In Article <1992Sep2.130157.3954@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
>> >blathers:
>
>> >> In article <dkristof.715431601@hq> dkristof@Pt.hq.af.mil (Capt
>> >> Dave Kristof) writes:
>
>> >>> What is the purpose of mankind?
>
>> >> To worship God.
>
>> >   As a Christian, I feel obligated to point out that this answer
>> >is a.) not Biblical, and b.) not the historical Christian view. 
>> >I doubt it is even a common Fundamentalist view.
>
>> 	Well, so what? You haven't told us what the purpose of mankind
>> is, accourding to these groups you try to speak for. What is it?
>
>Bruce?  What the hell is going on?  There *is* no scriptural statement
>that *I* am aware of that specifies a "purpose of mankind"[*] -- nor is
>any such thing a matter of doctrine in ANY Christian sect I know about.
>That Lionel Tun is willing to utter inane nonsense in response to a
>question is all very nice, but hardly relevant to anything.

From the bible, KJV,

Mark 12:
28. And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning
    together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him,
    Which is the first commandment of all?
29. And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear,
    O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
    all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength:
    this is the first commandment.
31. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour
    as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the
    truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding,
    and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his
    neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and
    sacrifices.
34. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him,
    Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that
    durst ask him any question.


--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 8 Sep 92 05:23:00 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep2.214329.242@access.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes...
>In article <25912@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov writes:
>>In article <9qhn+lf.alc@netcom.com>, alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen) writes...
>>>believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>>>> How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
>>>> Pagan teaching from our schools?  [...]
>>> 
>>>Welcome, Brave Christian Warrior to the fight against the
>>>logic of man.  I recommend three steps to join the battle:
>>> 
>>>1. Contact the Institute for Creation Research (I can supply the address...
>>>2. Contact the Tychonian Society (I can supply the address if you want...
>>>3. Contact the Flat Earth Society (I don't have the address handy, but...
>>
>>4. Vote Bush/Quayle '92.
> 
>What role, if any, did Bill Clinton play in the events leading up to the
>Arkansas trial?

None.  He was out of office when the Act 590 was passed by the legislature
and signed into law by Gov. Frank White (March 19, 1981).

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antti's word
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:22:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 

In article <1992Sep4.172320#IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
-> In article <1992Sep4.110648.27448#cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
-> Siivonen) writes:
-> > jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
-> > 
-> > >	"To make someone to do (something)"  One word, eight letters:
-> > >	"motivate"
-> > 
-> > 	"Juoksutututtaa" => To make someone to make someone to run. How do you
-> > 	translate with one word ?
-> 
->   Antti, this is an argument you will certainly lose.  English has lots of word
-> (_root_ words), and I mean lots.  200,000 words is a small dictionary.  The OED
-> contains 400,000 and leaves out all slang and most words from after 1950.

This argument is pointless, the languages are completely different.  English
is an Indo-European language and it relies on prepositions and a few
simple suffixes to convey different meanings.  Finnish is Finno-Ugric, a
completely different branch, and relies on prefixes and suffixes.  The
verb and noun structures are also extremely different.  While a page of
Finnish may have less words than a equivalent page of English, Finnish's
reliance on dipthongs, dual consonants, and multi-syllable words (single-
syllable words are less common than in English) will make the Finnish have
more characters and probably make it longer overall.  Both languages are
very difficult for non-natives to master.

BTW, I was born in Finland.  My parents speak Finnish, I've lived over
10 years of my life there, and I will be moving back soon.  (Quick
off-topic note: If anybody knows Internet sites in Finland that are open
to the public in the Helsinki metropolitan area, *please* reply!  All I
need is email, I'm willing to pay if necessary.)

--
Jani Patokallio                  |  "Ignorance is the soil in which belief
acc1bbs!jani.patokallio@ssr.com  |   in miracles grows."  -Anon.

---
 . AME 1.07 .
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 6 Sep 92 23:47:54 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep3.065216.1115@csis.dit.csiro.au>, prl@csis.dit.csiro.au
(Peter Lamb) wrote:
> 
> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> 
> >	The real biologist has rubber-boots that are never dry. 
> 
> Gosh. Does this mean that there's no biology to be done in arid areas? I'd
> better run over to the local Uni's Biol Sciences people and tell them that
> they're only allowed to work in swamps from now on.

Antti the biologist assumes that Death Valley don't have animal
life :-).

Kent
...heading off to that direction next weekend with wife and kid.
Yes, the air conditioning system works in my car.

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: 25,000,000 year-old BEE?????????
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 08:31:23 GMT

On Monday, September 7, _The Washington Post_ ran a story on the bee.  
It's on Page A2 in the "Science Notebook."  Rather than type in the whole
story, I'll just list the salient points.

* A fragment of genetic material from a stingerless bee has been cloned.
  The bee has been entombed in amber more than 25 million years ago.

* It's an extract of the muscle tissue representing about one-ten-
  thousandth of the bee's genetic complement.

* The researchers are George O. Poinar, an entomologist at U.C. Berkeley,
  Raul J. Cano, a molecular biologist at Cal Poly, Hendrik Poinar, a
  grad student at Cal Poly, and David W. Roubik, a Smithsonian bee expert
  from Panama.

* The first stage of the work has been reported in Medical Science Research,
  a British journal.

* This work was acknowledged in Michael Crichton's _Jurassic Park_, and
  the labs have been filmed for Steven Spielberg's movie.  [No assurance
  that the labs will actually appear in the final cut, though. -- HH]

* The team hopes to obtain dinosaur blood from an amber-entrapped biting
  midge, extract some dinosaur DNA, and use it to trace the dinosaurs'
  lineage.

* Sequencing of the ancient DNA shows about a 7 percent difference from 
  the DNA of contemporary bees.  This is a clue to the rate at which
  bees' evolution has progressed.

* The amber was found in a mine in the Dominican Republic.  It was formed
  from the sap of an extinct bean tree, which lived in the area 25-40
  million years ago.

-- Herb Huston
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: teaching evolution
Date: 5 Sep 92 16:14:32 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1299@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil 
(Bill Riggs) writes:

> Take all the 
>information in Chapter 1 (evolution) and move it to the end of the book. 

It is very hard to find a linear sequence of topics to teach in
biology, especially evolution. IMHO, the best way to teach evolution
is throughout the entire biology course -- give the students a
quick overview at the beginning then use the material being taught
in the course to illustrate evolutionary principles. The evolution-
first/details later scheme Bill mentions does keep students from
thinking, IMHO; but, the details-first/then decide sheme he
proposes has a drawback. If students don't see a common thread
woven through their course, they are bound to see biology as a
blob of unconnected topics and lose interest.

>At the 
>end of the school year, run through thst last chapter and teach
>evolution as a THEORY, not proven fact. 

You seem not to understand the theory/fact thread that never
completely goes away. Evolution is a fact, if you tell students
it is just a provisional explanation but teach other parts of
science as written in stone you are unfairly denegrating evolution-
ary biology. _All_ science should be presented as subject to change
if a better explanation comes along.

>Then, in the last test, ask
>a single question..."Take a position on the theory of evolution and
>justify your position based on the information covered this year."

>	I wonder what kind of answers we'd see...

This stupid question would get the kind of stupid answers it
deserves. 

>Bill R.

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
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:14:14 GMT
Summary: earth to Bruce Salem; come in Bruce ...

In article <1992Sep9.033743.24872@morrow.stanford.edu>,
salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) complains:

> In article <135665@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:

> >In Article <1992Sep2.130157.3954@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
> >blathers:

> >> In article <dkristof.715431601@hq> dkristof@Pt.hq.af.mil (Capt
> >> Dave Kristof) writes:

> >>> What is the purpose of mankind?

> >> To worship God.

> >   As a Christian, I feel obligated to point out that this answer
> >is a.) not Biblical, and b.) not the historical Christian view. 
> >I doubt it is even a common Fundamentalist view.

> 	Well, so what? You haven't told us what the purpose of mankind
> is, accourding to these groups you try to speak for. What is it?

Bruce?  What the hell is going on?  There *is* no scriptural statement
that *I* am aware of that specifies a "purpose of mankind"[*] -- nor is
any such thing a matter of doctrine in ANY Christian sect I know about.
That Lionel Tun is willing to utter inane nonsense in response to a
question is all very nice, but hardly relevant to anything.

> To attone for the sin of Eve? Or something else as dire? Or is it
> to Love one another? Or something as vague? Pray, tell us what it is
> then?

Why don't YOU tell us?  That has about as much point as trying to
elicit an equally banal response from Christians to a silly question.
Suppose, for a moment, that some earnest "Christian" will undertake
to "explain" the "purpose" of Creation.  Why should you think this
person has a clue?  I repeat: there is NO SUCH DOCTRINE in Christianity.

Fee, fie, fo, faw; I smell the body of a man of straw.
----
[*]
there are some passages in Jeremiah about God as Potter and humanity
as God's pots.  Besides the (evident) metaphorical character of such
texts, it is not exactly easy to infer from them anything substantive
about purpose.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon			"I know of nothing -- I suspect
					not even death -- that is so fixed
mls@usl.com				in the present tense as love."
standard disclaimer					-- Jess Anderson
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & Evolution
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:24:23 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: tyre@selkirk.sfu.ca (Richard Tyre)

In article <tyre.716399348@sfu.ca>, tyre@selkirk (Richard Tyre) writes:
>It is an oversimplification of the problem to assume that a significant
>proportion of homosexual behaviour is genetically determined.

While you're correct that there are a lot of complicated things going on,
starting with "defining" homosexuality in the first place--researchers
don't just "assume" here.  They have good evidence.

>I use non-adaptive here in the restricted sense that homosexual
>behaviour fails to transfer ones genes to the next generation.

This ignores kin selection.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:08:03 GMT

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Then they cannot be one species.  One of the more common definitions of 
>species is 'animals who freely interbreed and produce life fertile offspring.'
>If they don't/can't interbreed then they are different species.

>This is one of the more basic tenents of science.  If you have studied
>science, how come you don't know this?

	Don't blame me - actually this was my point: The extreme subspecies 
	can't interbreed with each other, so they're often considered to 
	be different species - especially if the other subspecies are 
	extinct. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Is Antti a JW? (was Re: macroevolution)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 19:14:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.104439.27104@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
> >Yeh, he a JW allright, and I emailed him and told him I was going
> >to tell on him for saying "bullshit"!
> 
> 	Hey, listen now, dudes ! I've lived in streets and to me your hypocriti-
> 	cal and bourgeois playing with nice wordings is just what I said it to
> 	be, bullshit. 
> 
> 	I think "bullshit" is more natural than f**k. 

  Sorry: same source.  Despite the "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" story, both
words predate English itself.  Saxon fell into disfavor after the Norman
invasion, and ever since these words have been considered "lowbrow" (which
eventually turned into insulting and then obscene).

  I am sure it is just an unfamiliarity with English, but I assure you that both
words are considered "obscene" (try saying either on TV).

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Bales
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:13:15 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Originator: jmeritt@rod.mitre.org


Notice how he, once again, hopped in, made some assertions, then hopped out?
Consistent.


-- 
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Back to "Bales' scales"
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:32:49 GMT

bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:


>But if we rephrase the question as "Why don't organisms have characteristics
>resembling a number of types of otherorganisms instead of just one?", the
>answer is "they do."  Consider an organism

>    with a tail resembling a beaver's,
	"Although it is reputed to be like a beaver's tail, it isn't really.
	 The tail of a beaver is much flatter and broader and is covered
	 with special scales, whereas that of the platypus is covered on the
	 top with coarse hairs ... The platypus tail is used only for steering
	 during swimming, while the beaver uses its tail to help in propulsion."
		[1] p11.
	 
>    with a bill resembling a duck's,
	"The bill looks a bit like that of a duck, with nostrils on top
	 just back from the tip; but unlike the duck's bill it is soft and
	 rubbery."
		[1] p10.
>    with webbed toes,
>    that uses echo location,
	It doesn't. Please provide any evidence that makes you think it does.
	It _does_ have a very sensitive bill, and can locate prey without touch
	or sight, but the way it does this is not echolocation.
>    is venemous,
	From a spur on its heel. Like a what, Bob? Oh! Yes, that's right,
	like an _echidna_. The other monotreme.
>    has fur,
	Like the mammal that it is.
>    and has cheeck pouches like a squirrel's.
	Yep, sure does. So?

>Creatures such as the platypus do not fit into a "boring heiearchy," are hard
>for evolution to explain, but pose no problem for creation.
> 

The platypus is simply not the biological Lego construction that
you're trying to make it out to be, with one bit from here another bit from
there. The platypus and echidna are no problem for evolution.

Could you tell us what your theory of creation is, and how the platypus
fits it?

Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)

[1] Grant, T. and D. Fanning, "The Platypus", 1984, New South Wales University
	Press, Sydney.
-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
From: cust_ts@kruuna.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Incredible
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:19:16 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

Antti writes:
sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>But you ignored *MY* point, that this is really speciation in action.  The
>subspecies on the extreme ends of the range have evolved in different
>directions, thus are diverging in an evolutionary sense.

	True.

And also: 
ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba) writes:
>is false has been shown to be bogus.  The only rational conclusion
>for me is that most anti-evolution books are written by people who
>have no concept of what the theory of evolution really is.

	That is true.
-- 

So what do we have?

- he refuses to answer questions
- when pressed for a scientific source, he gives a name of a book
- when the book is shown to be unscientific, he admits this
- he admits that anti-evolutionists don't know anything about evolution

Hmmmmmm.................
-- 
-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