HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: outline of following FAQ
Date: 11 Oct 92 05:08:10 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

The following two posts describe some basic aspects of evolutionary
biology and give references to further information on the subject.
There have been no (or almost no) changes to this post since the
last time it was posted. If creationists on t.o. wish to attack
the theory of evolution, _this_ is what they should be gunning
for. So often C'ists set out to demolish versions of evolution that
exist only in their imagination. Thus far, the only creationist
responses to this post have been to ignore it(most), declare the whole
thing fanciful without any reasoning to back this up (Tun) or
quote large sections and label them lies or give irrelevant, un-
explained criticisms (Antti). As yet, no creationist counterpart
for this post exists. 

Here is an outline of the following two posts:


EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Introduction
	What is evolution?
	What isn't evolution?
	What evolution isn't
Genetic variation
	How is genetic variation described?
	How much genetic variation is there?
Evolution within a lineage -- anagenesis
	Mechanisms that decrease genetic variation
		Natural selection
			Sexual selection
		Genetic drift
	Mechanisms that increase genetic variation
		Mutation
			Directed mutagenesis
		Recombination
		Gene flow
	Overview of anagenesis
********************************************************
Evolution among lineages -- cladogenesis
	Speciation -- increasing biological diversity
		Modes of speciation
		Observed speciations
	Extinction -- decreasing biological diversity
		"Ordinary" extinctions
		Mass extinctions
	The pattern of macroevolution
	Macroevolution
	Punctuated equilibria
Conclusion


Chris Colby

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: In defense of Once Hollow Earth Theory  (was: Applause, Ted)
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 22:18:45 GMT

In article <544-0T_@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.101718.13261@nic.funet.fi> Teemu Makinen writes:
>>   Why not, for example, say that the Earth has been bigger and less dense by
>>that time? That would give the gravity difference you are looking for.

> Um... actually, that won't work. For a sphere (which Earth is, at least
>close enough for these purposes) the g outside the sphere depends only
>on the mass of the sphere, whether or not the sphere is hollow.

No, the gravity outside the sphere depends on the mass of the sphere
*and how far you are from its center*.  So if the Earth had 1.414
times the diameter (and the same mass), creatures on the surface
would weigh half as much.  The felt effect of gravity would be even
less for those living in the many underground caverns.

Yes, the Once Hollow Earth Theory rests on solid ground.  Um, so to speak.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 23:19:03 GMT

In article <72@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>My claim is consistant.  Not ALL creatures would re-evolve;  some would find
>their niches at smaller sizes.  But at least one would.  The advantages are
>huge.  Greater size and strength mean:
>
>1.  Better chances in competition for mating rights within species.

Would that it were so--alas, however, I seem to keep getting dumped
for guys who are half my size who couldn't even pick up a major home
appliance. 

>2.  Greater abilities to deal with predators/prey from other species.

Yeah, but you have to deal with more of them--you attract more attention
from the predators and have to eat more prey.  (Indeed, if I didn't clip
so many coupons, my grocery bills could get pretty scary.) 

>3.  Fewer slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in life generally.

Alas, once again, no--why, not that long ago, I tried sitting in the
driver's seat of a new Saturn sports coupe and, with the sunroof opened,
my eyes were level with the top surface of the car; most cars just 
aren't designed for normal-sized people like myself.  (Further, there's
only one store in Colorado that carries dress shirts that I can wear
and I haven't found a swimsuit with legholes big enough to fit more
than my knees through in years.  And don't even talk about fitting into
an airline seat....)

>And you'll be able to tell your grandchildren you heard it from the source:
>yours truly.

Yep--actually I've saved a number of your posts for their amusement value.

>Then the elephants need to watch weight-lifting events on HBO more than they
>do.  They're (the elephants) doing it the wrong way.

Eh?  This is one of those moments when I can't quite tell if you're being
serious or not.  (If you are, why is lifting things in a much more 
efficient manner 'the wrong way'?)

Trygve
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:32:48 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <718507834@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
*: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
*: Message-ID: <57@fedfil.UUCP>
*: In the age when the really big sauropods lived, all the land had reduced
*: perceived gravity (since it was all pulled up into one place, i.e. under
*: the small electromag star we then orbitted, and the majority of the water
*: did not.  The southern hemisphere was pretty wet.

*An interesting force, that can pull granite across bassalt,
*but somehow leave the water behind.  


Catastrophists assume that an awful lot of the water, if not most of it,
was never there at that time, and that most of the water we now see arrived
with the flood.  

As to why what water there was did not sit on top of the people who were 
themselves sitting under Saturn, I canl only say that I am not God or
the sunshine superman;  I don't have all the answers.

We claim now to have bits and pieces of a puzzle, not the entire picture.
From what we do have and have been able tpo piece together, part of a 
picture does emerge, and it bears no resemblence to what is tought in our
schools.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: a farewell to Antti
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:14:58 GMT

In article <97739@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>See ya, Antti -- enjoy your pinheaded, chimp-
>like existence.

Now, Chris, I really must protest against your libelous statement above.
Chimpanzees are intelligent, inquisitive creatures that bear no resemblance
to Antti's net.persona.  It's really lucky for you that chimps can't sue.

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden and the C programming language
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:17:13 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <Bw4B1G.KGI@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.044344.1533@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.234020.24730@csis.dit.csiro.au> prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb) writes:
>>>Actually, feel compelled to encourage Ted in his efforts to improve
>>>his programming style. The program which he posted and has had criticised
>>>in this thread is a *vast* improvement to what he had published in
>>>Aeon 2(4), p115.
>>>
>>>   [program deleted]
>>>
>>>The while loop in this program continues to fascinate me.
>>
>>Now that is an understatement!!!!
>>
>>But then again the logic in the above code bears a striking resemblance
>>to the logic in Ted's posts.  :-(
> 
> This may be THE actual program that generate Ted's "theories!"
> 
> But then, Ted may complain that our comments are typical of the 
> established programmers who are unable to see the virtues of his 
> new programming style.

   Hey, wait a minute; maybe Ted IS a computer program!  Sure, just
feed some nonsensical theories into it, tell it to post them every 
once in a while, and give the same answers up to a certain point where
it ignores them.  After all, it's been shown to work with Lionel...

Karl
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: fossil, schmossil... what about the bug!?
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:55:55 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <Bvr21w.3Kw@access.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
|> In article <97661@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct5.174235.18587@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
|> >
|> >>    In a recent issue of Science, there is a review article and a
|> >>research article about a dryopithecine fossil (Dryopithecus branchoi)
|> >
|> >Bah, another rock... who cares?
|> 
|> Well, Chris, yesterday afternoon I became exasperated enough to harass a 
|> librarian into finding out why the September 25 issue hadn't been placed on
|> the shelves, and when she returned with it, I read both the rock and termite
|> articles.  The rock guy seems to be saying that you molecule guys were right
|> all along about chimps being more closely related to humans than to gorillas.
|> I mean, talk about "hard evidence."
    ...
   I thought that these articles were interesting for these reasons: 

      It confirms that chimps are closer to humans than they are to 
                 gorillas, hence that the classification of "ape" 
                 which includes both chimps and gorillas probably 
                 ought also to include humans (so, you see, we are 
                 descended from apes, because we are apes) -- also,
                 as pointed out, it is another case of a rock guy
                 agreeing with the molecule guys (is there a
                 trend emerging?)
      Dryopithecus branchoi may be the nearest common ancestor of 
                 gorillas, chimpanzees and humans (there seems to 
                 have been some concern to some people in t.o that 
                 such fossils were lacking)
      

   I had hoped that, for these reasons, it would be a little
controversial in talk.origins.  Maybe that we could learn something
as a sideline to conversations with creationists.

In article <Bvp1uK.G2@access.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct5.174235.18587@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
 ...
     [points out a couple of mistakes in my posting]
|> >    D. R. Begun: Miocene Fossil Hominids and the Chimp-Human
|> >Clade, pp. 1929-33
|> 
|> Hominids or hominoids?  The former seems implausible.
  ...
   I did a bit of reading on this.  It seems that there are some
people who maintain that apes and humans are in the same family,
that is Hominidae, thus the term "hominid" would be appropriate.
Others place apes in a separate family, Pongidae, and thus the
appropriate name for including both apes and humans would be
"hominoid".  Have I got that right?

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)
Subject: Re: Well, Holden?
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:44:33 GMT

In article <74@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.162548.5783@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>*Subject: Re: Direct question for Holden
>*}
>*}You claim to have a unique and totally accurate understanding of various
>*}astronomical, physical, biological, and chemical T/S "events" that differ
>*}from the accepted norm by a substantial degree.  Could you please specify
>*}how you acquired this raw data and your qualifications for evaluating the
>*}material?
>
>I feel myself under no obligation TO respond to liars.
>
>-- 
>Ted Holden

OK, Ted...  You have yet to call me a liar.  I, too, am curious as to
the answers to the above questions.  I am now asking you the questions
as quoted above.

Will you please answer *me*?


-- 

Frank Doss 
The above stated words are my opinions and do not reflect the opinions,
attitudes, or policies of my employer or any affilliated organizations.
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Friesen on conifers and angiosperms
Summary: yes virginia, pinecones contain significant nutrition
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:40:24 GMT

: From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
:: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
::: From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
::: When sauropods wheree the most common, and the largest, the dominant plants
::: were 'confers', seed ferns and cycads, *no* flowering plants at all.
:: There's an easy way to test it out:  try living on pine cones for about
:: a month or two.  I'll stick to the apples and pears, myself...
: Where is Euell Gibbons when we need him?

I myself have a jar of pine nuts in my pantry.  And there is a
significant biomass of squirrels in the yard outside my home living on
the pinecones from the loblolly pines there. 

Further, there's more to "conifers" than "pinecones", and more
to Stanley's example than just pine trees.

But really, there's no particular reason to suppose that the
conifer/angiosperm difference is all that important, and in fact I doubt
that it was.  Just the fact that no current large animals have a very
efficient digestive system would explain it adequately.  Sauropods did,
elephants don't, there you are. 

: Would Grape Nuts be an acceptable substitute for this experiment?

No.  It's a flowering plant product, I think.  But interesting you
should mention grape nuts.  Their commercials are a pet peeve of mine. 
Apparently, to them, "cruncy, nutty taste" means "it's hard to chew, and
we added a lot of salt to it".  To me, it has neither the texture nor
the taste of nuts, and only somebody used to associating salt with
salted nuts would think so.  So there.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Xref: sparky talk.origins:12992 rec.arts.comics.strips:2821
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,rec.arts.comics.strips
Subject: Re: creationism-explained.gif (part 01/01) [cartoon]
Followup-To: rec.arts.comics.strips
Date: 14 Oct 1992 20:03:52 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <domalley.719069352@unix1.tcd.ie>, domalley@unix1.tcd.ie (Slartibartfast (alias Daniel O'Malley)) writes:
|> 
|> In <1bfdb0INNssp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> >Please read what you reply to, eh?
|> 
|> If you're going to change the subject away from pictures, go to another
|> group, or at least change the subject line...

Gee, you mean that the half-wits who post cartoons to talk.origins
get upset when we discuss the subject of the cartoon instead of the
quality of the drawing?

Well, don't post cartoons here in the first place, then.

jon.

[Followup set to rec.arts.comics.strips]
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 350 lb super-athlete goat?
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:20:01 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Oct8.170152@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> In article <63@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>> A number of the t.o geniuses are still claiming that a sauropod
>> dinosaur the size of a 200,000 version of Bill Kazmaier would be 
>> far more efficient due to some intrinsic difference between weak, 
>> slovenly, corrupt humans, and the noble lower animals.
> 
>   Not enough to insult people?  Now you feel the need to insult animals?
> 
>> If so, then they should be able to demonstrate some similar quadruped,
>> roughly the same weight as Kaz, say around 350 lbs., whose weight, like
>> that of the sauropods, is mostly digestive system, which can lift
> considerably
>> more than the 1000 lbs which Kaz has shown himself able to either deadlift
>> or squat.  The sauropod would HAVE to be able to lift at least double
>> what the 200,000 lb version of Kaz can be shown to be limited to, or 
>> he'd have no chance of standing up at all.
> 
>   What is the Holden Number for a hippo or rhino?  These would probably be some
> of the best modern day models for a sauropod.
> 
>> The t.o regular crew says no problem.  Fine;  you should be able to show 
>> me a goat, a mountain sheep, a burro, or some such animal which, at around
>> 300 - 400 lbs, can lift 2000 lbs.  
> 
>   These are no good.  They are designed for running/jumping.  Unless there is
> evidence for sauropods leaping across mountainsides goats are a definate no for
> auropod models.
> 
>> Maybe the great agronomist Sue Bishop has such a burro.
> 

No, Ted, no burros around here.  But Guess What!  New born baby Burros can
Gallop.  Can't prance, though.

Sue

>   Maybe.
> 
>  |  __L__   *******************************
> -|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
>  |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
>  |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
> /|   ___    * Math Department             *
>  |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
>  |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
>  J  _____   *******************************
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars)
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:50:59 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child) writes:


>I'll bite:
>r=radius of earth = roughly 40,000,000 / 3.14159265 metres
>					 ^^ I have this in my head. Shows
>					    how sick I am...
>z=temple circumference = about 30m
>y=temple diameter = about 10m

>m=real diameter through surface
>X=angle between earth centre and lines to opposite sides of temple
>p'=apparent pi, z/m

>               m
>               ______
>               \    /
>               r\X /r
>                 \/

>simple triangle rule: m^2=r^2+r^2 -2rrcosX
>                      m=r*sqrt(2-2cosX)    [9.991 metres]
>therefore, p'=30/m, which comes to 3.0025. Given the accuracy
>of the data used, I'd say that this is indeed 3.
>It doesn't go to 3.14 until the radius drops to 9.543 metres...

>I don't know what to make of this result...    anybody spot an error?

Yes. That ain't no triangle you got there, that's a map of Tasmania, 
which you may call a Venerean triangle, but certainly not a
Euclidean one. Eat humble pi.

(For Northern Hemisphere readers: ask an expatriate Australian
if you can find one what the map of Tasmania is).
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: t.o., the home game
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:02:05 GMT

In article <97924@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>
>+2 if the C'ist avoids a direct question (The C'ist must respond to
>part of the post and omit the question. Posts that are completely
>ignored score no points.)

+2 if they "answer" the questions with something along the lines of
"Ha!  A typical response from the atheisticcommunisticsatanworshiping-
scientific cabal.  I won't even dignify that question with a response".

>+4 for each subsequent time you ask and the C'ist ignores the question
>
>+5 if the C'ist claims he will answer you, then leaves the group

+5 if the C'ist claims they have already answered that question when
in fact they have done nothing of the kind

+3 for everytime a C'ist uses "kind" without defining it.

+200 if you can get them to come up with a definition (no points if they
think kind == species).

+4 points if the C'ist claims evolution is wrong by the laws of 
thermodynamics

+6 points if they mention the *wrong* law in attempting to show this.

>+2 for correcting a C'ists logic

-1 if they actually use logic to begin with    :-)

>+5 for pointing out when a C'ist contradicts himself

+50 if you can get him to agree that he has contradicted himself.

>The "Ted Badge of Courage" award
>+12
>
>This can only be awarded by Ted, and you can only recieve the points
>for it once. You score 12 if Ted responds by attacking you personally.
>For example, if he attempts to ridicule you by making fun of your
>weight or claiming you must be on drugs to believe whatever it is
>you believe. 

And I would like to point out that I am very upset at not making Ted's
abuse list.  I have insulted him in this newsgroup as much as anyone
has and I don't get a mention.  Sue does.  James Merrrittt does.  Not
me.  *sniff*

>-1 for quoting the entire text of a post, then responding to
>a single point (unless you are composing a parody of Antti)

:-)

What is abusive email from the C'ist worth?

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

C Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Subject: Re: Antti dodges reality (take two)
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
Distribution: local,world
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:04:43 GMT

In <ksand-041092174527@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com writes:

# 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.
# 
	Scientists and teachers tend to believe that they can
	bring understanding and knowledge and give that belief
        up with	great difficulty.  They basically believe that 
	no one could possibly simply be determinedly anti-science --
	even after the last 12 years!  Or prefer believing lies
	and stupidities to the truth.  I don't even understand it
	myself...

	Ginny

# 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.

===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
===============================================================================