HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: isaak@imagen.com (mark isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Does Evolution Have Practical Uses? -- yes
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:24:17 GMT
Organization: imagen


colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) wrote:
> 	O.K., here's a few practical offshoots from evolutionary
> biology. I should state beforehand that I don't think judging a
> science by the amount of commercial or humanitarian spin-offs is
> a great thing to do. But, it certainly is a bonus.

Agreed.  However, when people say that machines can't fly, it's easier
and more convincing to point to an airplane than to teach them
aerodynamics.  Also, I personally don't believe in spending tax money
on things without practical justification.

> 2.) ... The theory has added some insight into how to better plan breeding 
> programs (i.e. don't breed all your variation away as soon as possible).

This reminded me of another application.  In integrated pest
management, the goal is no longer to get rid of as many pests as
possible, but instead (in many instances) to leave as many as you can
get away with without suffering significant economic loss.  This way,
it's not just the superbugs which survive, and the pests don't evolve
resistance to the control measures as fast.

> Mark made the point (I deleted it) that some of the things I mentioned
> in my first post could have been obtained through other branches of
> biology.  He forgets that evolutionary biology is an integral part of
> biology as a whole -- not a side branch. . . .
> Without evolution, biology is a loose collection of facts and
> rogue theories. Evolution is the glue that binds them all together.

I didn't forget; I simply disagree that evolution is inseperable.
Biology would still be viable without evolution binding it all
together.  After all, biology existed before Darwin, and other fields,
such as psychology, lack a unifying paradigm but still inspire a lot
of research.  Having said that, let me stress that I agree that
biology would suffer a lot if evolutionary theory were removed.  As
you said, it inspires research in other biological fields, and it
(IMHO) makes the whole subject easier to understand.  Perhaps these
should be listed as the most important of evolution's practical
applications.
-- 
Mark Isaak    imagen!isaak@decwrl.dec.com  or  {decwrl,sun}!imagen!isaak
	       "The color of truth is gray." - Andre Gide
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:43:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.bcwj14#
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

As I recall, some time back everybody was patting Mr. Loucks on the back
for being incredibly reasonable about some mis-quotations.

I seem to remember that he was going to obtain and read the original works
himself and tell us whether or not he agreed that they actually were
mis-quotations, and also pin down the ICR as to what the deal was with
these mis-quotations.

I do not recall ever hearing about this issue being resolved by Mr. Loucks.
Perhaps I missed something.

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
From: hyde@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lying (Perish the thought!)
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:16:39 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <2713@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> 
> 
> Unlike a number of the regular crew on talk.origins, I do not use the
> word liar loosely.  


	Until you can show me where I have lied we will
	have to assume you do indeed use this word loosely.
	You were challenged to show this yesterday, and since
	then you have posted hundreds of lines, yet you have
	not justified your charge.  Could it be that your
	statement above is not entirely truthful?






						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@ac.dal.ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
From: rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Sauropods: Swimmers or Stompers?   Source Suggestions Solicited.
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:46:05 GMT
Organization: SMDS Inc., Concord, MA

In article <csqj!b_@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:

Material about swimming dinosaurs from Ratkevich, Bird, Thulborn,
and Ishigaki.

---

The issue of swimming dinosaurs is discussed in _Tracking Dinosaurs_,
Martin Lockley, Cambridge University press, 1991, ISBN-0-521-42598-0,
pp 176-178.

Briefly (I don't want to type in that much material -- life is too
short) he argues that the evidence does not support the swimming
brontosaur's hypothesis and that the data was misinterpreted.  In
particular he argues that the tracks in question are underprints 
(an underprint is a footprint record in the material under the surface.)

"Essentially what has been overlooked in the previous studies is the
fact that a thin layer of sediment, say to to 5 centimenters, can buoy up
or support an animal just as effectively as several meters of water.
The underprints made on buried layers below this thin layer may be shallow
and incomplete.  Toe or claw traces may be seen where the foot's 
protruding extremities penetrated most deeply.  Because the rest of
the track is not visible, such partial footprint traces misleadingly
give the impression of an animal touching the substrate only with
the tips of its toes."

"... With a few exceptions, the studies that cite tracks as evidence
of swimming dinosaurs are probably seriously flawed."

----

I can recommend this work if you are seriously interested in dinosaurs.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Myth Of Morality
Summary: realm of Providence...
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:41:59 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Apr13.151915.1546@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.100111.905@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>I know a woman (fundamental Christian) who told me after a discussion about
>>evolution and creation differences, that she thought there would be no
>>reason to 'act properly, lead a moral life and be a good person' if there
>>was no *proof* that God had created man.  I almost choked.  This woman
>>[... descriptions deleted ...]
>>total brats, potential jail bait... and on and on.  
>>Oh, Yes, but she was a *good* Christian, quoted the Bible constantly, went
>>to church every Sunday without fail......
>
>In your assessment of this woman's character, are you going on her
>current position, or what is in the past?
>I would like to point out that when a person turns to God and repents of
>their sins, they are forgiven completely and God does not remember their
>past transgressions any more. I would suggest that where God has forgiven
>and forgotten it is not appropriate for anyone to dredge up the past.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>--
>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)

Limitless mercy is the realm of Providence; we have only empiracism.

If, a person claims to be forgiven and says the right litanys, but gives
*no* evidence there by, which is better to believe:

		(1) his statements
		(2) his actions

In the realm of empiricism in which t.o. resides, the only answer is 2. One
must consider the evidence present until such time as new evidence comes
to light.

-- 
 J. Michael Tisdel              | 
 jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org      | "I want to lie, shipwrecked and comatose,
 DSC Communications Corporation |  Drinking fresh mango juice."
 *** Standard Disclaimer ***    |           -- Red Dwarf
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: tga20201@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (The Traveller)
Subject: Re: The Historical Jesus 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:23:53 GMT

kiledal@lisp.cs.psu.edu (Erik Kiledal) writes:
>Roger:
>>Ok.  First let me say that I have been perusing five or six different
>>texts on the NT, and all of them agree with the above paragraphs.
>>Let me itemize what I think are the important points this author makes:
>>        1) The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts.

 [ Stuff about the authorship of John's Gospel deleted]

>1 John 1:3 "We proclaim to you what we _have seen and heard_..."
>(underlining mine).

>It does not end here, the letters of Peter were written by the
>apostle (an eyewitness) Peter. He identifies himself in the very
>beginning of 1 Peter "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ...".

>The letter of James was most likely written by the brother of Jesus, how 
>much closer can you get?

>The list goes on, these are just some examples. The authors of large
>parts of the NT were eyewitnesses.

You are somewhat correct in this assertion, but not the way you think you are.
Firstly, all of the Gospels were written AFTER the last of the apostles (
with the possible exception of John) had died.  The same holds true for the
pastorals, the letters of Peter and John, Revelation, and Hebrews.  It was
a common practice to take the name of some famous figure when writin
an important document.  It was the ancient's way of saying "X isn't around
anymore, but this is what he would have said if he were facing the current
crisis."  However, all of the NT with the exception of Paul's letters that
he did write, were written by second-generation Christians, those who had
been taught by the apostles themselves.  They took the stories and teachings
of Christ told to them by the Aposltes, arranged them in an order that 
made sense, and wrote them down for later generations.  Thus, the NT is
probably pretty accurate, in the sense of revealing who Christ was (and
continues to be for those of us who call ourselves His followers).  The
authors never intended it to be 100% historically accurate, because that
would make it harder for others to understand who Christ was.

>Roger: 
>>I would be willing to grant you that there was an actual person named
>>Jesus who was crucified in Palestine...

>Roger, what are you going to do about the fact that Jesus died for you?

>Erik Kiledal				| kiledal@cs.psu.edu
>The Norwegian Institute of Technology   | "Nietzsche is dead" 
>Computer Science			| - God
> 
>>Roger Squires
>>rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
From: andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: placentals mammals in Australia (was Re: Coffin Creation ...)
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:51:28 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Science, Uni of Sydney, Australia

In article <83793@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> Placentals, however, couldn't seem to come up with a good placental
> "opposum", because this marsupial still lives outside of Australia.
> Australia, however, did not get invaded by placentals because it
> was separated by water. It is interesting to note that introduced
> placentals (for instance rats) have replaced their marsupial counter-
> parts in Australia.

First there are good number of marsupial species (16? genera) in South America
but not the diversity thats in  Australia. A good trivia question is how many
species of marsupial are found in North America - the answer I belive being 4
because of 3 species which reach southern Mexico.

Until recently it was thought that placental mammals (except bats and
sea mammals) had reached Australia in 3 waves. The first was the "old-endemic"
rodents ~10 million years ago. These have adapted considerably to Australian
conditions. The second, roughly ~ 1 million years ago, was the "new-endemic"
rodents. The most recent wave began with man 60,000+ years ago, the remainder
of this disasterous wave is the mixture of placentals brought in by man
starting with the dingo 5,000+ years ago.

The recent exciting discovery of a fossil condylarth tooth in 55 million year
old sediments has shown that placental mammals were in Australia before the
continental breakup. I've only seen newspaper reports but there is a paper
in Nature. It may be that marsupials out-competed the placentals in
Australia! Hopefully more fossils will be found to clarify the picture.

Andrew
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Mutually exclusive? (Was Re: K e n  and his T h e o r y)
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:27:34 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

> In article <1992Mar25.170859.18324@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> >In a tribe the witchdoctors are they only ones
> >who know their wierd religion is hocus pocus - the ordinary
> >people often including the chief are being conned.

This could be mapped to many other areas, including Creationism.

Cheers,
Kent
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:30:34 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


In article <351C02Wfc9LU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>If Sunderland's claims are true, we'll see in the original transcripts
>that some evolutionary scientists speak differently behind closed doors. 

Pardon?  Someone has already posted quotes, by the scientists,
saying that Sunderland has misquoted them. A transcript doesn't
increase Sunderland's credence. The tape that the transcript was
made from, might.

-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Still Waiting For Answers
Date: 7 Apr 92 07:57:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: zia.1992Apr7.075737.14799
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM

In article <9550.29E12BCD@ofa123.fidonet.org> Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org (Dr Pepper) writes:
> > From: news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted "The Idiotic One" Holden)
> > Message-ID: 2709@fedfil.uucp
>
> > In recorded history, i.e. since the foundation of Rome
>
>A mere 2800 years or so is "recorded history" only to people who never heard of Egypt. Or Assyria, Sumeria, Persia, Babylon...
>
>Having trouble with the felt effect of education again?

As I read more and more of Ted Ted's posts why do I have the feeling
that when he was led towards the trough of knowledge he shied away?

In other posts Ted Ted seems to claim a much longer recorded history.
That's because his idol V said so.  

Here we have only had a Usenet feed for about 10 months.  I once
tried to track down any reference to a person that Ted Ted quoted
as an authority.  I could not find any published paper by this
person in the field in which Ted Ted said he was an authority.
To be fair, back to the mid 60's for certain, back to around 1940
with some gaps.  I got tired of chasing a chimera.  This is not to
say that this person did not exist.  It is only meant to say that
he did not seem to publish in journals in which other people who were
were in the field did publish in.  Ted Ted claimed that he was an expert
in celestial mechanics.  (I guess anyway.)

Ted Ted used the phrase "heavy weight astronomer".  I have seen a
few astronomers who could/should lose a few pounds.  But I have
never seen it suggested that a persons's contribution to astronomy
was proportional to their body mass.  (That is until Ted Ted did!)
-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: how mammals got four chambered hearts
Summary: asking the wrong question
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:39:28 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Apr16.234410.1529@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
bk186@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) 

>Well, this story is getting old and I'm starting to get bored.  I
>think I'll let you have the last word so I can move onto another topic
>which has caught my eye to see what stories surface there.  It's been
>fun!  

	Darn, and you were getting close. If you would have found one
more piece of information you might have had it. Look at the heart
of modern Dipnoi(*). They are the closest living relatives to Crosso-
pterygii(**), the ancestors of all tetrapods. They have four chambered
hearts. The hearts of amphibians and reptiles are derived; they
evolved from four chambered ancestors! The reason you couldn't
find a reasonable transition pathway from reptile heart to mammal
heart is because that's not how it happened. I was really hoping you
would stumble across this on your own. It's not like biologists are
hiding this little tidbit.

(*) lung fish  (**) Coelocanths apparently hadn't been looked at
when the book I got this info from had been written (1975).

Remember, evolution does not always increase complexity and less
derived groups (amphibians and reptiles in this case) don't quit
evolving when more derived (in general, though not in this instance)
lineages, in this case mammals, split off. This was all in the ref 
I gave a few weeks ago. I'll give it again.

Torrey and Feduccia, 1979, Morphogenesis of the vertebrates, Wiley,
New York

	They go into a reasonable amount of detail about fish,
amphibian, reptile (crocs have somewhat different hearts), 
mammal and bird (a rederived a four chambered heart) hearts.

	Can't wait to see your next topic.

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: Great paper
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:12:28 GMT
Summary: can you say "null hypothesis"???

In article <6cwjm+f@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
(Roger Squires) writes:

> I did find a gross flaw in the argument, however.  They say:
	       ??????????
> 	The coherence of these results across different variables
> 	measured in two cores we regard as very powerful support for
> 	the theory. ... a result that is independent of absolute age
> 	specifications and depends only on the assumption of constant
> 	accumulation rates.                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Jumps right out at you, doesn't it?  Uniformitarianism rearing its ugly
> head once again!  Oooooo Nooooooo!

Ummm.  Are your trying to say something or what?  If the deposition of
cores is NOT uniform, then our expectation of a correleation is lessened.
Furthermore, the assertion that the deposition *is* uniform amounts to a
null hypothesis which must be countered by evidence to the contrary before
one argues on any other basis.  What the Imbries point out is that THEIR
results are NOT dependent on external assumptions about the timescale.

If the core accumulation is NOT uniform, how do you explain the Imbries'
correlation with the periodic variation in the earth's orbital elements
(a "uniformitarian" development in time if ANYTHING is).  Given that
correlation, their studies may be read as CONFIRMATION that

	a) core deposition is uniform (*because* correlated with celestial
	   dynamics that are, by Newton's laws, uniform in temporal effect)

	b) the correlations establish a variation of insolation of the
	   earth which tracks the  paleontological record of ice ages --
	   and thereby (whatever OTHER causation may be relevant) *is* a
	   confirmation of solar energy budget as a cause of glaciation.

	c) given the correlational data, it becomes less reasonable to
	   demur from the timescale that "uniformitarian" assumption on
	   the core accumulation cofirms (along, one notes, with the REST
	   of the physical timescale data.)

I fail to understand what the point of your posting was.  As in several
others of our postings, you seem here to inhabit an intellecual limbo
that has essentially nothing to do with the actual conduct and assumptions
of the scientific enterprise.  If you HAVE a problem with these, it would
be better to address them directly, rather than with the innuendo that I
at least read in your notes, which seem to embody nothing but suspicion
that public, peer-reviewed articles don't mean what they say.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: False C O R R E L L A T I O N S, a couple of better examples
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:26:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr13.093219@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes...
> 
>  I was only 6 in '72.  What was the Ervin committee?  Who was John Dean?  Why
>was he the one who was correct?

I was only 7, but the Ervin Committee was the Senate committee which
investigated the Watergate break-ins.  John Dean was the White House
counsel.  As for him being "the one who was correct," I'm afraid I
missed the original message but there are good reasons for doubting
his testimony in the Watergate hearings.  A recent book (_Silent Coup_
by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, 1991, St. Martin's) argues that
in fact John Dean instigated the Watergate break-ins for his own
reasons.  Dean has filed a multimillion dollar libel suit against the
authors and the publisher, but they are standing behind the book and
it's still on the shelves.  (I think the book makes a pretty sound
case, myself.  The book is also noteworthy for its account of the
relationship between Bob Woodward and Alexander Haig.)

(Anybody have any ideas on where followups should go?  talk.politics.misc?)

Jim Lippard                  Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Department of Philosophy     Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins