HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crl@nbnet.donetsk.ua (Zinkovich Igor I.)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.technology
Subject: Human-alfa-Fetoprotein
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:42:43 +0200
Distribution: world
Organization: Nota Bene Firm Ltd
Reply-To: crl@nbnet.donetsk.ua
Keywords: Fetoprotein

sci.bio.technology.

     "To anybody who have interest with a purified
Human-Alfa-Fetoprotein, we ask to inform us about your
post address. Our E-mail is: crl@nbnet.donetsk.ua.
     Thanking you in anticipation !"







Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: akp@cns.nyu.edu (Prashanth Kumar A.K.,Rm 1010)
Subject: test
Reply-To: akp@cns.nyu.edu
Organization: Center for Neural science.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:24:16 GMT

Keywords: 
Sorry about this...just a test.
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: maierj@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Joey Maier)
Subject: Re: Norway starts hunting minke whales
Organization: Andrews University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:40:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.135524.26092@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.125353.18026@alf.uib.no> sigurd@novaja.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Sigurd Tjelmeland) writes:
>>
>>I believe that the question of hunting of minke whales
>>in the North Atlantic from the perspective of preserving
>>or endagering the species as such has been finally
>>settled through the work of the scientific committee of IWC,
>>so the debate is now on moral issues.
>
>Maybe, maybe not. I would like to point out, however, that killing
                                                            ^^^^^^^
>whales is not *necessary*; that is what counts. We all live in a great
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you!  Very well stated.  The whole essence of the problem is that
we don't need to do it any longer.  It has nothing to do with the number
of whales left.  With the exception of meat, everything that is of
commercial use that is derived from whales can be synthesized at a
comparable cost.  

Joey Maier             maierj@andrews.edu

Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: akp@cns.nyu.edu (Prashanth Kumar A.K.,Rm 1010)
Subject: DINOSAUR BITES!!!
Keywords: 
 
Reply-To: akp@cns.nyu.edu
Organization: New York University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:00:48 GMT



I have recently been pondering over a problem that has been handed
in to me about the consequences of an imagined toxin on the thalamic
relay cells.While I have finished my work on the answer,I am yet to
begin working on the question, which I think has been put into a 
wrong context,and too full of biological errors.I spotted about
four.Have a go at it,friends,biologist and countrymen......I await 
the outcome!!

Question:Imagine a lipophilic neurotoxin from a dinosaur has been 
isolated and purified.It was miraculously recreated from  DNA 
obtained from blood cells in the gut of pre-historic insects 
embedded in amber.the toxin when injected....etc..
and finally....relate your discoveries to the behavioral 
consequences of dinosaur bite.

QED.
From: lew@ief.spb.su (Vladimir F. Lewchenko)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Help me to find e-mail in Sweden
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:59:09 +0300
Distribution: world
Organization: Inst. of Evolutionary Physiology & Biochemistry, St.Petersburg
Reply-To: lew@ief.spb.su

>From lew Tue Dec 15 20:55:17 MSK 1992
Help me to find E-mail address:
Institute of Genetics, University of Lund,
Solvegatan, 29, 22362, Lund, Sweeden
Thank you in good time
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Evolution defined as genetic change?
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:00:10 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <29371@castle.ed.ac.uk>, rambaut@castle.ed.ac.uk (A E Ram aut) writes:
|> ronald@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Ronald A. Amundson) writes:
|> 
|> >I would like information, with citations if possible, of definitions
|> >of the term "evolution" as something like "changes in the genepool."
|> >The earliest one I know of is Dobzhansky (1937) _Genetics and the
|> >Origin of Species_.  He says "Since evolution is a change in the genetic
|> >composition of populations, ..."  (p. 11)
|> 
|> Would it not be more correct to define evolution in terms of phenotypic
|> change as it is the phenotype that most mechanisms of evolution (natural
|> selection, sexual selection  etc.) act upon.

No, this will not work.  For a change to count as evolutionary, it *must*
be inheritable, that is it must be genetic.  This is because non-heritable
changes are not propagated, and thus cannot be *accumulated* - which makes
the whole process rather meaningless.

Dobzhansky's definition is a good 'beginners' definition - that is one that
gives a good *simple* criterion.

For a more in depth discussion of this issue, I recommend Ernst Mayr's
"Towards a New Philosophy of Biology" (or some such title, I always have trouble
getting it right).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: akp@cns.nyu.edu (Prashanth Kumar A.K.,Rm 1010)
Subject: Re: DINOSAUR BITES!!!
Reply-To: akp@cns.nyu.edu
Organization: New York University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:57:08 GMT


I must apologise for having left out a bit of stuff,provoking responses...the author
adds in the q,  "my apologies to jurassic park"
From: mytelka@codon1 (Daniel Mytelka;612 Barker;x2-5110)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: listing of Bio. profs/researchers
Date: 12 Dec 1992 01:26:02 GMT
Organization: University of California
NNTP-Posting-Host: codon1.berkeley.edu

>In article <1992Dec11.125233.64@acavax.lynchburg.edu> frye@acavax.lynchburg.edu writes:
>
>   Just a question:  is there a listing of biology professors in the USA and 
>   the research that they are doing? 
>

Try Peterson's Guide to Graduate Schools for a rough idea. That lists all
professors and a one-line summary of their area(s) of interest. If you are
interested, write to the schools/professors or look up some of their
papers.

DSM
>
From: bl275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Diaz)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: DNA photolyase questions
Date: 13 Dec 1992 21:06:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bl275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Diaz)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lv08+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lili Velez) says:

>A friend of mine at Cornell Medical is curious about DNA photolyase, and
>asked me to forward the following to the net. She's interested in both
>the workings of this enzyme and who might currently be working on the
>topic:

Aziz Sancar and his wife Gwendolyn are two big-time players in the
photolyase field.  I would suggest doing a medline search of their recent
work. 
-- 
Dizzy Dan         ddiaz@cwru.bitnet      bl275@cleveland.freenet.edu
Department of Molecular Genetics - Albert Einstein College of Medicine
"Dissertations are archaic documents which will be elimated as soon as I
have written mine"
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: josh@cqs.washington.edu (Josh Hayes)
Subject: Re: Evolution defined as genetic change?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:19:07 GMT

Stanley makes an excellent point here, and the phenomenon to
which he refers has a buzzword name: "phenotypic plasticity".

Another example: in corals, classification used to be (and for
a lot of groups, still is, alas) based strictly on skeletal
characteristics. It turns out that a single colony may exhibit
multiple "shapes" during its life depending on the conditions
to which it is exposed; changing from a mound to a plate, and
back again, for example. These two forms - mounds and plates -
might well have been considered to be separate species in the
past. There are some wonderful plates showing gradation of
forms between two "species" of Pocillopora in the corals of
Australia collection.

The point is, the phenotype is often correlated with the
genotype, but not always. The genotype is strictly heritable;
the phenotype is ONLY if a) the relevant genetic material is
also transferred to the next generation, and b) similar environ-
mental conditions obtain for both generations.

I think there was a review of phenotypic plasticity in Annual
Review a few years back, but I only started taking it last 
year (couldn't afford it before... :-( ). I only urge readers
interested in current evolutionary thought to leaf through the
last few years' issues, where you'll find titles like:

Evolutionary Rates: Stress and Species Boundaries
Ecology of Parapatric Distributions
Canalization: Genetic and Developmental Aspects
Novelty in Evolution: Restructuring the Concept
Molecular Changes at Speciation

in the 1991 volume, and

Natural Hybridization as an Evolutionary Process
The Nearly Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution
Artificial Selection Experiments
Behavioral Homology and Phylogeny
On Comparing Comparative Methods
Phylogenetic Taxonomy

in the 1992 volume, along with nine reviews related to the
subject of global environmental change. Great stuff. If only
_I_ could write like that.

Josh Hayes

--
  Josh Hayes, Quantitative Sciences HR-20 U of Washington
  josh@mowgli.cqs.washington.edu             206 543-5004
 That's one more kid that'll never go to school, never get
	   to fall in love, never get to be cool
From: rambaut@castle.ed.ac.uk (A E Ram aut)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Evolution defined as genetic change?
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:40:20 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:

>|> Would it not be more correct to define evolution in terms of phenotypic
>|> change as it is the phenotype that most mechanisms of evolution (natural
>|> selection, sexual selection  etc.) act upon.

>No, this will not work.  For a change to count as evolutionary, it *must*
>be inheritable, that is it must be genetic.  This is because non-heritable
>changes are not propagated, and thus cannot be *accumulated* - which makes
>the whole process rather meaningless.



Phenotype is by definition inheritable because the phenotype is the
physical manifestation of the genotype an inheritable set of alleles.



I agree about the Mayr reference though, very good.


Andrew.
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: luckey@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Jon Luckey)
Subject: Re: DINOSAUR BITES!!!
Organization: We don't need no stinkin' batches!
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:37:31 GMT

akp@cns.nyu.edu (Prashanth Kumar A.K.,Rm 1010) writes:

>I have recently been pondering over a problem that has been handed
>in to me about the consequences of an imagined toxin on the thalamic
>relay cells.While I have finished my work on the answer,I am yet to
>begin working on the question, which I think has been put into a 
>wrong context,and too full of biological errors.I spotted about
>four.Have a go at it,friends,biologist and countrymen......I await 
>the outcome!!

>Question:Imagine a lipophilic neurotoxin from a dinosaur has been 
>isolated and purified.It was miraculously recreated from  DNA 
>obtained from blood cells in the gut of pre-historic insects 
>embedded in amber.the toxin when injected....etc..
>and finally....relate your discoveries to the behavioral 
>consequences of dinosaur bite.

I imagine that the consequences of such a bite would be to
stimulate Micheal Crichton's lawyers to spasms of rage and anger,
forcing involuntary cries of 'Plagerism' and 'Lawsuit!' to
their lips.  Similar reactions may occur in Steven Spielberg's
lawyers, but to a much lesser degree.

Further clues to this behavior can be detected in last year's
NY Time's Best Seller List and Steven Speilbeg's whereabouts
during Hurricane Andrew.
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Subject: Re: Norway starts hunting minke whales
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:55:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.125353.18026@alf.uib.no> sigurd@novaja.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Sigurd Tjelmeland) writes:
>I have two questions:
>
>  Do anyone believe that whales have a greater right
>  to live than other hunted animals (reindeer etc.)?
>

Intellectually, no. Emotionally: yes, to a degree. The degree does not
involve reindeers, though - to take an extreme example, I feel more
for a whale than for a paramecium.

>  Do anyone seriously hold the view that "Omaha" seems
>  to advocate: Animals are as important as humans
>  (implying it is an equal crime to kill an animal as
>   to kill a human being)?

What do you mean by important? From a philosophical point of view, I
indeed don't feel humans are more important than anything else. For
nature, for example, I find it hard to imagine a less important species.
This of course doesn't mean that people are *less* important, again from
the abstract poiint of view, and, subjectively speaking, since I am one,
I wouldn't want people to become extinct.

>
>I believe that the question of hunting of minke whales
>in the North Atlantic from the perspective of preserving
>or endagering the species as such has been finally
>settled through the work of the scientific committee of IWC,
>so the debate is now on moral issues.

Maybe, maybe not. I would like to point out, however, that killing
whales is not *necessary*; that is what counts. We all live in a great
restaurant, and everybody's on the menu, so we can't do away with
killing. Killing something (be they whales, ducks or anything else)
because of unemployment or fun or whatever is indeed equivalent to making
soap out of Jews.

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
From: josh@cqs.washington.edu (Josh Hayes)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Recent review of neutralism, cladistics
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:28:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: mowgli.josh.724102128
Organization: University of Washington

With respect to the recent thread on neutralism and evolution,
I refer the interested reader to the following:

OHTA, Tomoko. 1992. The nearly neutral theory of molecular
evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23: 263-286.

I only got my copy in the mail this morning, and read the first
ten pages or so, but it seems to be quite lucid and thorough,
as one would expect both from Ohta and Ann Rev.

In the same volume there is an article titled "Phylogenetic
Taxonomy", which can no doubt shed light on our discussion of
cladistics, species, and the like (authors: Kevin de Queiros and
Jacques Gauthier; pp. 449-480).

So you should know....

Josh Hayes
--
  Josh Hayes, Quantitative Sciences HR-20 U of Washington
  josh@mowgli.cqs.washington.edu             206 543-5004
 That's one more kid that'll never go to school, never get
	   to fall in love, never get to be cool
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: Thomas Bjorkman <Thomas_Bjorkman@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: artificial breeding
X-Xxdate: Fri, 18 Dec 92 10: 24:46 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: tnb1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:20:38 GMT

In article <ldsoderb.724677131@reading> David S. Oderberg,
ldsoderb@susssys1.reading.ac.uk writes:
>Could someone please tell me whether artificial breeding/selection has
>so far produced any new species, according to the generally accepted
>definition/s of `species' among biologists (interbreeding capacity etc.)?
>Even including the very latest in biotechnological achievements, has the
>creation of new species been attained?

The most obvious example is Zea mays (maize in Reading).  This species
was bred in Mexico before the conquistadores destroyed the lab notebooks
:-), so wee don't know exactly what process was used.  The domestic apple
is also a species that resulted from human intervention.  Most of the
food you eat comes from extreme variants of the wild species, usually
containg genes that have been introduced from related species.  Many may
be different enough that you would regard them as effectively being new
species.  This has been going on for millennia.

With plants, crossing barriers do not make a particularly effective
criterion for speciation because there are many ways to force crosses
that normally would not happen.  Beyond that, the question of what
consititutes a true species division is controversial enough that I am
not going to touch it.

The latest genetic engineering has not produced any new species, and to
my knowledge, that is not a goal of any of that work.  The benefit of
genetic engineering is that everything can be kept the same except for
one gene, thus changing the species as little as possible in other ways. 
Classic breeding brings in more extraneous genetic material, but genetic
engineering makes it possible to bring material in from a broader range
of organisms.
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Evolution defined as genetic change?
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:31:37 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <29517@castle.ed.ac.uk>, rambaut@castle.ed.ac.uk (A E Ram aut) writes:
|> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
|> 
|> >No, this will not work.  For a change to count as evolutionary, it *must*
|> >be inheritable, that is it must be genetic.  This is because non-heritable
|> >changes are not propagated, and thus cannot be *accumulated* - which makes
|> >the whole process rather meaningless.
|> 
|> Phenotype is by definition inheritable because the phenotype is the
|> physical manifestation of the genotype an inheritable set of alleles.

Well, that is not how I use the terms.  I use phenotype to mean "the physical
manifestation of the organism", no reference to genes.

The problem is that a given gentoype can produce many different specific
phenotypes, depending on the environment.  Thus it is entirely possible for
the physical manifestation to change without any change in genotype.

A good example of this is the increase in height in North America and Europe over
the last several centuries.  There is no evidence that there has been *any*
genetic change with regard to height, and, yet height can be shown to have
a very high heritability (about as high a heritability as has ever been observed).

What is happening?  The answer is better nutrition.  This is *not* evolution,
it is just environmental effects.  As soon as nutrition returns to medieval
levels the mean height will drop back to the old value in the next generation.

It is this sort of change that must be seperated from evolutionary change,
and which is not by a definition based on phenotype.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: rwinder@PFC.Forestry.CA (Richard Winder)
Subject: Re: "Falling" Asleep
Reply-To: rwinder@PFC.Forestry.CA
Organization: Forestry Canada (Pacific Forestry Centre)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:07:24 GMT

In article <BzF4sA.Jyx@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
>geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) wrote:
>> RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:
>>> Does anyone know what causes the sensation (when just falling asleep)
>>> of sudden literal falling, followed by a startle reaction that wakes
>>> you right up?
>> It is a myoclonic jerking that originates in the brain.  It is common
>> to humans and most animals.  It is normal and portends nothing at all
>> psychologically.
>
>A question that comes up over and over again.  Gordon must have answered it
>ten times at least...  but (and this is why I'm redirecting this to sci.bio)
>what the heck is it FOR?  Anything this widespread ought to have some
>physiological function and evolutionary rationale, surely?

I'm not sure that it's *for* anything.  It can be a symptom of stress, and,
in acute form, cause insomnia, `nervous breakdown', etc.  This happened to
me.  From the little that is written about it, I seem to recollect that
the main theory is that `hypnogogic imaging' that the body uses to lull
itself to sleep becomes disturbing (e.g. the sensation of falling, a scary
face, etc), causing a startling wake response.  In my case, lack of sleep
exacerbated the condition, which kept me from sleeping, which...
Well, let's just say it can be serious.  How stress causes the hypnogogic
process to deteriorate- I have no idea.





>
>(Do you really mean "most animals"?  I've seen cats and dogs do it, wouldn't
>be surprised if other mammals were the same, but frogs, houseflies and sea
>anemones...???)
>
>-- 
>--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
>17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
>INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
>BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp

  RICHARD WINDER                    Title: Visiting Fellow
  Forestry Canada                   Phone: (604) 363-0600
  Victoria, B.C.                    Internet: RWINDER@A1.PFC.Forestry.CA
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: The Madras Crocodile Bank of India?
From: kfree@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Freeman)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 17:42:26 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Does the Madras Crocodile Bank of India have Internet access,
or any net-access? I understand that it maintains an impressive
crocodile database, so I assume that herpetologists the world
over are in touch with them. 

--                    
INTERNET:  kfree@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Freeman)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!kfree
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: lgauvin@phobia.Berkeley.EDU (Lisa Gauvin)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: on-line listing of animals?
Date: 19 Dec 1992 00:13:57 GMT
Organization: CEA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: phobia.cea.berkeley.edu

Keywords: 

HI,
	I am not sure if this is the correct place for this,
but.. Does anyone have or know where I can access an on-line
listing of endangered species?

thanks for any help in this matter
lisa
lgauvin@cea.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: arf@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: WINOGRADSKY COLUMN
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:42:27 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL


 
         Winogradsky Column (Or something like that)
 
 
 Several months ago Hemant Chikarmane of Woods Hole described 
 a fascinating sounding project for all us Mr Wizzards.
 
 I followed the instructions to the letter (more or less) and 
 got exactly what I put in plus a little algae and a few 
 emergent blades of grass.
 
 I seem to have lost his email address and want my money
  back :)    Besides it is tying up a very useful graduated 
 cylinder.
 
 Are you around Hermant?  Has anyone else had problems 
 getting this going?
 
 js
From: bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu (Bill Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Evolution defined as genetic change?
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:12:05 GMT
Organization: St. Mary's College of Maryland
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d13
X-XXMessage-ID: <A7521CCD560301D2@williams.smcm.edu>
X-XXDate: Mon, 14 Dec 92 16:13:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.064229.6136@news.Hawaii.Edu> Ronald A. Amundson,
ronald@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu writes:
>If anyone has any novel _alternative_
>definitions, I'd be glad to see them too.  (Not that I believe in
>definitions, mind you ... I just collect them.)  

How about change in "kind."  The "scientific creationists" like this
one:  they can define "kind" as any change large enough that we're not
likely to see it, either in the fossil record or in the laboratory. 
Poof!  There goes evolution.  Aren't definitions powerful!
___________________________________
William E. Williams, bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu
Divison of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
St. Mary's College of Maryland
St. Mary's City, MD 20686