HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: self-deceptive belief maintenance
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 23:41:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.230101.16341@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
>
>    THE "FACE ON MARS"
>
>    There really is a big rock on Mars that looks remarkably like a humanoid
>    face. It appears in two different frames of Viking Orbiter imagery:
>    35A72 (much more facelike in appearance, and the one more often
>    published, with the Sun 10 degrees above western horizon) and 70A13
>    (with the Sun 27 degrees from the west).
>
>    Science writer Richard Hoagland has championed the idea that the Face is
>    artificial, intended to resemble a human, and erected by an
>    extraterrestrial civilization. Most other analysts concede that the
>    resemblance is most likely accidental. Other Viking images show a
>    smiley-faced crater and a lava flow resembling Kermit the Frog elsewhere
>    on Mars. There exists a Mars Anomalies Research Society (sorry, don't
>    know the address) to study the Face.

But why go to all the trouble of going to Mars for evidence of aliens
building rock formations that look like human faces or muppets when
similar formations are readilly found right here on earth?  Referring
to the "Book of Lists, #3" (compiled by Amy Wallace, David Wallechinsky,
and Irving Wallace), page 24, there are pictures of a series of rocks
that look like John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, and Richard M. Nixon.
These rock formations appear to be quite old and should be conclusive
proof that aliens landed on our planet millions of years ago and 
sculpted Nixon's visage into a Greek mountainside; why aliens would
do such a thing and why a civilization sufficiently advanced to have
developed interstellar travel wouldn't have something better to do
with their time remains a mystery for now.
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Agnosticism and other labels  (was: Deja vu)
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:58:11 GMT
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group

In article <1992Sep29.130841.25795@medtron.medtronic.com> ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba) writes:
>then are you saying that Agnosticism is
>independent from being an Athiest/Theist?  Then it would be possible
>to have Theistic Agnostics and Atheist Agnostics.

It's worse than that.  I, for example, sometimes call myself a
Theistic Atheist.  (Usually I just ignore labels completely.)  Before
anyone asks how such a stance can avoid being self-contradictory, I
ask that they provide a specific definition of "god" that we all can
agree upon.

>It appears that the terms "Athiest" and "Agnostic" have different
>meanings to different people.

Absolutely.  Sometimes labels are more effective at obscuring meanings
than at communicating them.
-- 
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: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:06:33 GMT


>In article 14343@unixg.ubc.ca, morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>> 
>> Recall:  pi=3.14... only in Euclidian geometries, and the surface of the
>> Earth is non-Euclidian.  For large circles on the Earth's surface, 
>> pi < 3.14...
>>

Pi is not defined as the ratio of circumference to diameter. If it were,
a great deal of physical laws where it enters would be false. Nice try,
Morgan, but pull the other one.
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Goodbye t.o -I'm interested in evolution not ideology
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:17:40 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Sep29.183129.2493@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> In article <1992Sep24.041302.25282@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> John Wilkins <john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au> writes:
> }When I discovered t.o, I thought "how wonderful, people discussing one of
> }my favourite topics, the theory of evolution. I think over the last year
> }or so, I've read about a dozen articles on the topic. The rest have been
> }on "creation science". Perhaps this group should be renamed
> }"talk.creationism", and another set up for "talk.evolution"? At least
> }then the ICR partisans would be openly dishonest if they invaded t.e.
> }Food for thought :-)
> 
> No problem.  Set up your kill file to delete any message with the contents
> "Annti", "bible", "genesis","bales","flood","god","created","creationism",
> "Holden", and a few others.  ZAP, gone.  Simple!

   Sure, but if you do that there'll be nothing left!  Besides, that would
cut out all the funny parts.

Karl
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Darwinism is dead !
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:34:53 GMT

In article <7184@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M
Feuerbacher) writes:
> > Aslo, do not confuse mutations due to changes in DNA with mutations due to
> >misreading of the DNA (ie. siamese twins, etc).
> 
> Could you elaborate on this?

  Sure.  Please note that what follows is what I have gleaned from reading
several different popularizations.  It is highly subject to correction by a real
biologist.

  Some morphology occurs before birth due to various "accidents" (for lack of a
better word) in growth.  One of these (certainly one of the best known) is
siamese twins.  Identical twins normally occur when the fertlized egg is
splitting into cells and the cells separate into two clumps.  Since this is only
a minor setback at that stage, normal growth occurs after that in both cells. 
If the splitting occurs too late, however, the clumps do not fully separate and
the two children share some cells.  These are commonly called Simese twins.

  Now, nothing in the genetic makeup of the children caused this to happen. 
Their children would have the normal compliment of genes, just as they do.  One
could easily misrepresent this as a mutation (which it isn't) reverting back to
the original state.

  A friend of the family had a son, about 4 or 5 years ago, born with a severly
malshaped head.  Something had gone wrong during development and the head had
been warped.  Again, there was nothing wrong with his DNA, it was perfectly
normal and what had happened had no bearing on his genes.  If he had lived long
enough to have children, they would have been normal.  Again this could be
misrepresented as a mutation (which it wasn't) reverting to normal.

  My girlfriend suffers from a mild case of fetal alchohol syndrom.  She is
leagally blind without her glasses and nearly completely deaf as well as having
some trouble with visual representation.  None of this is genetic, and her
children will have none of these symptoms.  Again it would be a total
misrepresentation to claim this is genetic error correcting.  Here genes are
fine, just the way that they were read during development caused problems.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:01:12 GMT

In article <1168@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> In article <BRUCE.92Sep30153607@suprenum.supr.scm.liv.ac.uk>
bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
> |
> |Here's another example: suppose I want to roll six sixes (with six
> |dice).  How many rolls would I expect to need if
> |     a) I just keep rolling all six until they all come up sixes?
> |     b) If I take out any that come up sixes and just reroll the rest?
> |
> |The answer for b is much less than a, because the two situations are
> |quite different.
> 
> *Much* less - ever play Yahtzee?
> 
> My *guess* would be that it would usually take fewer than 5 rolls, and
> almost never more then 6 (in the b case).
> 
> Case a comes out somewhere in the 10's of thousands.

Well, it depends what you mean by "expect".  If we say one "expects" something
to happen if it is a better than 90% probability, then (a) takes about
107,428.26 trials or about 644,569.56 throws, and (b) takes about 3.75148 trials
or about 22.5 throws.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Egg-shaped antediluvian world
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:28:40 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

One other point which I do not think has been raised.

The continents are moving now. Lots of friction for moving continents;
there must be a force moving them: and at present, this force is not
Saturn.

If you want to calculate probabilities of continents ever having been
together in one super-continent, you need a model for the action of
this force. "Random drifting" is a BIG assumption. There are some pretty
powerful force driving the movement: you certainly can't assume that
neighbouring continents move independently of each other.

Find out what the force is, and then you have a starting point for
probability arguments.

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Cain's wife (was Re: A brief tirade)
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:46:22 GMT

Seanna Watson (seanna@bnr.ca) wrote:

: >	Hey, you wanted an answer, right?  I actually think he hurts his
: >case here.  Cain didn't have to marry a full sister -- he could have
: >waited a few generations while he was wandering and married a second 
: >cousin or something.
: >	This is absurd extensionalism, but hey, now you've got an answer.
: 
: Cain could not have had a second cousin--second cousins are in the same
: generation, and share great-grandparents.  Obviously, there were no great
: grandparents to share.  In Cain's generation, there were *only* brothers
: and sisters.  In order for Cain to marry someone from a subsequent
: generation, at least one brother and sister would have had to marry.

	What I was basically trying to convey was that Cain himself did not 
have to marry a full sister (which is what Boice concludes).
	Adam and Eve beget Adlai and Jezebel.
	Adlai and Jezebel marry, beget Farquar.
	Farquar marries the daughter of another pairing of first-generation
brothers and sisters, say Emily.
	Farquar and Emily beget Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and Roxanne.
	Cain, who has been wandering for at least a hundred years, marries
Roxanne.
	What relationship is Cain to Roxanne?
	(Adam and Eve are the great-grandparents of Roxanne, so Cain
is the great grand-uncle of Roxanne.  O.K. we have defined the familial
relationships.)

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov


	BTW, for those of you searching for the definition of "absurd
extensionalism", I made it up.  It "means" -  "using an unrelated argument
to support an already logically over-extended debating position."
From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Subject: Microevolution and Macroevolution
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:15:22 GMT

onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

>"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" were meaningless expressions before
>creationists put the spotlight on them. To an evolutionist micro- and
>macroevolution virtually were the same thing because it was generally believed
>that they were driven by the same causes. But creationists pointed out that you
>could nuke fruitflies forever and get wird fruitflies, fruitflies with three
>eyes, or legs instead of eyes etc., but they would still be within the
>specie of fruitflies. And today we know why. It is because micro- and
>macroevolution are independent drives. Thus, the two expressions HAS become
>meaningfull in evolutionary terms. Ironically, perhaps, because of the
>creationists.

When I first ran across the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution"
in a creationist diatribe, I scuttled over to my nearest evolutionary
reference (Invertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, 2ed, can't remember
the author/editor) and found the following definitions (paraphrased):

Microevolution:  evolution driven by forces of selection acting on
	individuals of a species.
Macroevolution:  evolution driven by forces of selection acting on
	entire species or groups of species (sometimes referred to as
	"species selection", if I remember correctly).

The text suggested that microevolution was the primary cause of
speciation and adaptive evolution, and that macroevolution had a much
lesser effect on these phenomena.

Armed with these definitions, I went back to my creationist literature
to read numerous quotes from "eminent" biologists who claimed that
while microevolution was undeniable, macroevolution was questionable
as an explanation for the development of life.  Which turns out to be
exactly right, except that the creationists had cleverly re-defined the
terms to refer to the scope of the changes in a given species (resulting
in a nearly opposite meaning) before supplying the quotations for my
consideration.

So what is the current state of affairs?  Are evolutionary scientists
now using the creationist definition of the terms, or do the above
definitions still hold sway?

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 08:26:03 GMT

In article <qh1uon0@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>I find it very interesting that Mr Tun's original assertion
>was that the fossil record could be explained "just as well"
>by a Flood model.
>
>But then, when people ask him to do that thing: namely explain
>it, he just throw out a bunch of random assertions about vapour
>layers and water condensing, and does not attpemt to explain 
>the fossil record *in the least*.
>
>Mr Tun.   You claimed to be able to explain the fossil record,
>so go ahead: explain it!

And I'm still waiting for a description of the palate, pelvis, and knee
joint of _Australopithecus afarensis_ with comparisons to those of modern
humans and modern apes.

-- Herb Huston
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Origin of carniverous plants
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:27:14 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <7089@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:

>>            I could try to construct "just-so" stories, but I won't. I'll
>>simply point out that any theory to explain the advantage of these partial
>>stages has the advantage over creationism of being testable. 
>
>Can you point me to examples in the literature where such a theory has
>been proposed and tested?

Have you read my FAQ file? (If you want a copy, email me) In it I
reference an animal behavior book (Alcock's, "Animal Behavior: An
evolutionary approach") that explains how adaptive pathways are
postulated and tested. 

Not every single detail about the evolution of every single species
(there are millions of species on this planet) is known. 

>Alan Feuerbacher
>alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com

BTW A great text about plants (I read it when my flight out to
Minneapolis a couple of weeks ago got stranded on the runway
for about 5 hours waiting for some bad weather to blow over)
is: Raven, Evert and Eichhorn, 1992, Biology of Plants: Fifth
edition, Worth Publishers, New York. The sections on diversity
are (to me) expecially cool. I took note of all the traits the
authors described and what do you know -- they fall into a nice
hierarchical pattern. I wonder what I should make of that? 8-)

Chris Colby
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Origin of Carnivorous Plants
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 01:36:00 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <schumach.717463025@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>In <7063@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
>
>>For example, if a plant mutation resulted in sticky leaves, what selective
>>advantage might be proposed to carry that along until the plant evolved
>>the appropriate digestive enzymes and the mechanism to secrete them?
>
>Trapped insects die, decompose, drop their nutrients to the ground to
>fertilize that plant or its offspring.

 I know almost nothing about botany (in fact, I'll some of what I know is
wrong, so I have a net negative knowledge :-> ) but if such a plant was
being attacked by leaf-chewing insect, this might form an apt defense... and
the digestion, etc. came later once the opporunity arose...

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above theory is probably not
                            || that of the University of Michigan.
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || (Heck, it probably isn't right.)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Eyes & Blind Watchmakers (was Re: Antti's File...)
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:28:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep28.183847.18864@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >are biased. Also, I lived in Finland, and I do remember birds staying
> >around during winter time, and they survived. Once again, are you
> >really studying biology?
> 
> 	I referred to late winter 1982 AND migratory birds. We were dealing 
> 	with swallows etc. not redpolls etc. winter species !

So, did your theory crumble now when you realized that there are birds
capable of staying alive in cold climates? Gee, I wonder how that
really happened, maybe natural selection? No, that's too obvious, instead
we had this white-bearded man that created birds that could handle the
cold climate. Yeah, that's a more logical explanation.

Cheers,
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.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Use of quotes around "evolutionist"
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 11:30:35 GMT

>> "Evolutionist" is a word that was hijacked by the fundamental Christian
>> sects that believe the Genesis creation legends actually happenned. Anyone
>> else who uses it implicitly accepts the creationist meaning of the word,
>> including all their assumed attributes.
>> 
>> Likewise "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are also their words. It
>> is very difficult to use them in a debate because they are like moving
>> goalposts. They have not been defined to everybody's satisfaction and
>> seem to mean whatever the creationists want at the time.Which makes it
>> difficult to debate constructively.
>> 
>> '"Evolutionist" = "person who believes in the theory of evolution"'
>> is an example: belief implies acceptance without taking account the
>> overwhelming evidence. To use it implicitly denies the evidence.
>> 
>> Until the definitions are fully understood by everybody, I will continue
>> using quotes.
>> 
>> Chris Lee
>
>The terms Evolutionist, Microevolution and Macroevolution are terms derived
>from people who hold to the validity of the theory of evolution. They were not
>derived by people who hold to the validity of the theory of creation. If the
>term Evolutionist HAS been hijacked by creationists, as you maintain, then it
>is simply because people dicussing the issue HAVE NOT DEFINED THEIR TERMS.ie.
>Evolutionists have ALLOWED the ground to be cut from under their feet by having
>their terminology transformed. 
>
>However, I disagree with your premise that whoever uses the term Evolutionist 
>implicitly accepts the creationists' meaning of the word, including all their
>assumed attributes. This would include a number of prominent authors who
>maintain the validity of the theory of evolution. YOU may continue to place 
>quotes around the word Evolutionist, the rest of us prefer to ask what is meant
>when someone uses the term. For understanding from where the other person is
>coming-from is essential in any form of dialogue.
>
>Gary
>
"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" were meaningless expressions before
creationists put the spotlight on them. To an evolutionist micro- and
macroevolution virtually were the same thing because it was generally believed
that they were driven by the same causes. But creationists pointed out that you
could nuke fruitflies forever and get wird fruitflies, fruitflies with three
eyes, or legs instead of eyes etc., but they would still be within the
specie of fruitflies. And today we know why. It is because micro- and
macroevolution are independent drives. Thus, the two expressions HAS become
meaningfull in evolutionary terms. Ironically, perhaps, because of the
creationists.


Onar.



Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Subject: a clarification from Ted?
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 19:38:26 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


From: macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca (R. Andrew MacRae)

>>csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)
> news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden)

>>2) were the animals on the
>>*southern hemisphere considerably smaller than they are now?     


>There were no animals on the southern hemisphere.  I mean, why live  
>in darkness when you could live in light [?]

	WHOA!  Hold on a second.  I can't see how else this could be  
interpreted, but I'll give you the chance to clairify anyway: Are you  
really saying there were no animals living in the southern hemisphere  
during the time of "reduced felt effect of gravity" - the time of  
dinosaurs and Pangea - i.e. the early Mesozoic (Triassic) in  
conventional geology - because there was no light?  And while you are  
at it, make sure you are clear about the difference in pole positions   
- just so we do not get confused about what you mean by "southern  
hemisphere".
	-Andrew
	macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Info wanted - William McDougall: Lamarckian inheritance in rats.
Date: 5 Oct 1992 21:56:25 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

I'm searching for information about William McDougall's work on
the Lamarckian inheritance of learned behavior in rats.  These
studies were from the 1930's and maybe 1940's, I believe.  Basically,
I`m trying to find good books, papers or reviews that describe
his experiments and the evidence that refutes them.  I've done
a limited search through Stephen Gould's books but haven't had any
luck yet.

Any reference would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,

Tim Ikeda
(timi@mendel.berkeley.edu  *OR* timi@wormsex.berkeley.edu)