HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: The rise of consciousness
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:34:30 GMT
Summary: confused question
Keywords: brain,evolution,consciousness

In article <emc.715304048@keiko>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:

>         ... I was curious if there is any literature, articles, etc.
> on why consciousness should be necessary to evolution.  Why not

??? As it stands, this is an absurd question.  Perhaps you are intending
to ask what selective advantage might be conferred by consciousness?
Let me again refer to Edelson, specifically to _Bright Air, Brilliant
Fire_ for the overview statment and to _The Remembered Present_ for a
more thoroughgoing theoretical treatment of *one* idea about this (I
hasten to emphasize that at this point *most* notions in this field are
more speculation than science, though I think Edeleman's position is
fairly solidly based in honest neuroanatomy and function.)

Edeleman's view is that (what he calls "primary") consciousness (that
is, awareness without the additional complications of self-awareness)
confers a selective advantage by putting together experienced correla-
tions of perceptual/conceptual activities in parallel sensory modes
into a "scene" that facilitates learning.  Secondary, self-aware, con-
sciousness adds to this a view of the self and time which allows for
operation by planning, which (given selective reproduction of those
who do that successfully :-)) could be highly adaptive.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
				and you say "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard,
mls@usl.com			a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  And
standard disclaimer		yet, Wisdom is justified by all her children.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Keeping time twice a day
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:59:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.035910.3128@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
writes:
> I seem to recall that elephants don't lay down for very long -- an hour
> at most if they can help it -- because of the problem of bearing weight
> on the soft body parts.

  So how do Elephant's sleep?  Couldn't the dinosaurs use the same technique?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:06:35 CDT

Steve Fritzinger - SE Sun Washington,DC. (fritz@triguy.East.Sun.COM) wrote:
: In article 87ST03Qz76e400@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks writes:
:  
: B.C. poem deleted.

Speaking of Equal Time and Comic Strips:

	from 1987 Frank and Earnest strip - by Bob Thaves:

Young Frank and Earnest sitting in Hallway outside of Door
labelled 'Sex Education' -

	"I'm not saying I don't believe it.
	 I'm just saying they should give
	 Equal Time to the Stork Theory."


Hmmn?  I wonder what he was really referring to?  Hmmnn?

rob derrick
robd@cray.com
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution board game
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:22:22 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug31.160144.1@cua.edu> winner@cua.edu writes:
|It isn't a board game, but you have SimEarth.
|
The main problem with SimEarth is that it has a predetermined set of
possible life forms, and only a few hundred at that.  It simulates
somthing closer to orthogenesis than to modern evolutionary theory.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: bvickers@net3.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Is Antti a JW? (was Re: macroevolution)
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:46:05 GMT
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Have you read the little blue book "Life - how did it get here, by
>	evolution or creation ?".

Do you consider this little disingenuous, flawed and deceptive piece of
crap a scientific source?  I think the JW tract you are referring to has
been taken apart throroughly in this forum already.

At least now I know where you're coming from.  Although I must
admit I wouldn't have expected a Jehovah's Witness to be using
words like "bullshit."

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:50:22 CDT

Gerald Vernon Nelson (vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca) wrote:
: In <94541@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
: 
: >Also, can you back up your repeated assertion that "evolutionists"
: >take this one step further and say "... so therefore there is no
: >god." I haven't seen anybody on t.o. say that. I haven't seen
: >any evolutionary biologists say that. I (a grad student studying
: >evolutionary biology) don't claim that. I've never seen a text
: >in the field make this claim. Where are these phantom hoards of 
: >people arguing in this manner?
: 
: I'm one, and proud of it.  I was raised without religious bias
: and the idea of evolution co-existing with god is an atrocity.

Thanks for all the help.  NOT!

Good grief, why is it that the one thing even more annoying
than an obstinate Creationist is an obdurate Atheist?

: All of the evidence you agree to is mutually exclusive to the 
: concept of god.  How can someone cling to such an idea?
: It is shown again and again, that things just didn't happen
: as depicted in the Bible, yet people stubbornly believe the
: general idea, there is a god, and he created all life.

Take a creationist, negate all of their logic, and here is
what you get.  And it is just as wrong.  And just as ignorant.
And for me, personally, more annoying.  I don't know why, just is.

KnowhutImean Vern?
 
rob derrick
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:07:25 EST
 <d3Ep020R1eKi01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <2872@fedfil.UUCP> <1992Aug25.014027.19210@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug25.014027.19210@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David M. Jones) writes:
> In article <2872@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil (Ted Holden) writes:
> 
>>You've got the cart in front of the horse here.  You're assuming the cold
>>climate and then asking what would then cause white skin to develope.
>>
>>It doesn't work that way.  Somewhere in the world, due to large scale mutation
>>most likely involving natural/cosmic catastrophe and large volumes of energy
>>being released upon the world, a group of people with white skin developes.
> 
> Um, someone correct me if I've missed something, but hasn't Ted
> traditionally maintained that the first humans were white and the
> "large volumes of energy" were responsible for the origins of
> dark-skinned people?
> 

Yep, he sure did.  In fact, he kept insisting that there was only one or
maybe two people of dark skin and all the black people are descended from
them.

Sue

> David M. Jones                              "Trifles! Trifles light as air!"
> dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu                              -- the Hystricide
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:49:58 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug21.203827.19533@SSD.intel.com> jerryg@ssd.intel.com (Jerry Gaiser) writes:
|In article <1992Aug21.132442@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|>Horses sleep on their feet, why not seismosaurs?
|
|Just a nit. Horses do sleep standing up, but it is not R.E.M. sleep. ...
|least one period of R.E.M. sleep and they get that by lying completely down.
|
|Now back to your regular programming...

True enough, but I think *birds* do things differently, and I do not know that
I have ever seen a bird laying down to sleep (sitting on a nest is not for
sleeping, it is for uncubating eggs).

And, remember, dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than to mammals,
so the avian type of sleep is more likely to be relevant than mammalian.

I do think the idea that sauropods never lay down warrants serious
consideration, Warren had that right.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:17:52 GMT
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University

In article <1992Sep2.162614.10344@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>>Oddly, all standard biology texts disagree with you. Possibly you
>>haven't read any of them.
>
>	Yes, I have spent a lot of time with them, but it doesn't seem to get  
>	anywhere. Besides, I don't call that biology. 

That's quite an assertion.  Care to back it up?  Like, maybe with your
definition of biology?

Also I have read the 
>	creationists opinion. You are right: They're mostly naive, whereas 
>	evolutionist books contain a lot of data. Yes, a lot of data. But, if 
>	you read between the lines, you find that it can't be true.

That's quite an assertion.  Care to back it up?

 Simply, 
>	if I would claim that 9 = 10, everybody would claim that it isn't true.
>	But if I hide it to a huge formula, then, if you don't read your books
>	well, you end up believing that 9 = 10. Very clever. 

So reduce the equation for us.
>
>	Those evolutionists lack one thing: A holistic view of thinking. I would
>	recommend that each of you here, would do your own studies in some field
>	of biology -outdoors- not in museums. 

If this is your definition of holistic thinking, I fit it.  I am an
evolutionary biologist, and I am working on both a field (i.e. outdoors)
project as well as several "indoors" projects - theoretical and
empirical.  How is this supposed to make obvious to me the fundamental
wrongness of evolution?  Actually, the several components of my research
make me more and more convinced of the simplicity and correctness of
evolution every day.

Ever tried to identify museum 
>	objects ? Know how hard it is ? It's because they're outside their 
>	context, normal environment. Doing hard work in the nature would give
>	you/them PRACTICAL knowledge about the subject.

My practical knowledge of biology (which is, I assure you, much greater than 
yours) continues to convince me that evolution is correct.

Even if it didn't, ask a quantum physicist how accurate a reflection of
the underlying events a layman's practical knowledge of physics is.
 

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: To Frank Sesco -- Re:  The genealogies of Christ
Content-Type: text
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 14:19:30 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 262       



	Just curious, Mr. Sesco -- are we talking about Jesus Christ's
descendants as recorded in the book of Matthew, or those recorded in 
the book of Luke?  

	Just wanted to know.

	Reply to talk.origins or e-mail to 

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov



Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 1 Sep 92 08:52:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Sep1.004050.9371@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
>
>Let's see, we can let A=1, B=2, C=3, . . . , X=24, Y=25, Z=26.  Then
>
>  R o n a l d  W i l s o n  R e a g a n
>
>  18+15+14+1+12+4 + 23+9+12+19+15+14 + 18+5+1+7+1+14 = 202.
>
>Then we multiply by 3 since that's how many names we're using giving us 606.
>But wait, RWR's most 'important' job was the presidency, so we should add that
>in too as well as the fact that he served two terms:
>
>  P r e s .
>
>  16+18+5+19 + 2 (terms) = 60.
>
>  606+60 = 666!!!
>
>I'm sure there are people out there who can give better examples of this.  (I'm
>working off the top of my head.)



There is a MUCH simpler more elegant way to arrive at this.  Simply
make every letter of the alphabet equal in the eyes of God:

  R o n a l d    W i l s o n    R e a g a n

  1+1+1+1+1+1    1+1+1+1+1+1    1+1+1+1+1+1
       V              V              V
       6              6              6

Very spooky, eh.  Two independent numerical studies have arrived at
the same conclusion.  The correlation is undeniable!







-- 
Steve Linke
Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
La Jolla, CA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 18:44:56 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>>Oddly, all standard biology texts disagree with you. Possibly you
>>haven't read any of them.
>
>Yes, I have spent a lot of time with them, but it doesn't seem to get  
>anywhere. Besides, I don't call that biology. Also I have read the 
>creationists opinion. You are right: They're mostly naive, whereas 
>evolutionist books contain a lot of data. Yes, a lot of data. But, if 
>you read between the lines, you find that it can't be true. Simply, 

Could you please explain what you read between the lines that made you come
to that conclusion?

[9=10 example deleted.]
Only if there is some sort of error in the derivation.  Where do you think
the error is in evolution?

>Those evolutionists lack one thing: A holistic view of thinking. I would

???

>recommend that each of you here, would do your own studies in some field
>of biology -outdoors- not in museums. Ever tried to identify museum 
>objects ? Know how hard it is ? It's because they're outside their 
>context, normal environment. Doing hard work in the nature would give
>you/them PRACTICAL knowledge about the subject. 

Many "evolutionists," as you call them, do work out in the field.  Do you
really think evolution is only limited to fossils and museum pieces of dead
animals?

>	Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |

PS:  If you indend to reply with one of your usual "content-free, blind
assertion" posts, don't even bother.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:00:31 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>  The example you gave was in complete conflict with your claims.  It disproved
>your claims.  Your claims were not compatible with the example you gave.  If
>your claims were compared to your examples, they would be found to disagree.

	I have become a bit suspicious about what I said. If I told that there
	were three distinct SPECIES that was an error, I meant that there were
	three SUBSPECIES. 

	(I don't have the original post available)
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
From: wattsww@ntmtv.UUCP (Warren Watts)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Reply-To: wattsww@ntmtv.UUCP (Warren Watts)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 01:15:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.121440.24522@city.cs>
lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>
>According to evolutionist thinking, whites and blacks can be
>considered two separate species. So the situation in apartheid
>countries has an evolutionary basis. How are whites and blacks
>considered different species? Well evolutionists like to show
>speciation has and is occuring. A popular method is to say that
>two sets of organisms that are identical but differ in mating
>habits or preferences `cannot' interbreed and are therefore
>two distinct species. This can be extended to human society if
>social factors cause different races to prefer not to interbreed.
>
Actually, according to evolutionists who actual practice valid
science, the humanity is one species, known as Homo Sapiens.  I
believe that you will find this to be true in any scientifically
acceptable evolutionary treatise.  As far as the human society
extension goes this is completely false.  First it is an invalid
extension, social behavior among humans that you describe is not
geneticly mandated.  Second I would like you to show me any society in
the history of this earth where different races have lived together
for a significant amount of time without interbreeding.

>
>Actually I think the main three racial groupings (black, white,
>yellow) are descended from Noah's three sons.
>

Aaahh yes, I suppose that you also agree with those justifiers of
slavery who say that Blacks are decended from Ham who was cursed for
looking up his father's robes to be 'a servant of servants, the hewers
of wood and carriers of water'?  I'm sure that you will get a lot of
agreement from the KKK for this theory.  And where do the Indigenous
peoples of the americas fit in this scheme, or do you need the book of
Mormon to explain them?  Sorry, but I heard to many people in the
church I was raised in justifying their racism with this crap to ever
accept it.  Do you want to talk about the Christian Aryan Church's
bogus Adamite theories next?  Basicly, the lesson is that bigots can
twist anything to their own ends, but bigotry and racism are neither
scientific or christian.

Peace,
	     Warren Watts
From: fritz@triguy.East.Sun.COM (Steve Fritzinger - SE Sun Washington,DC.)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:47:46 GMT
Reply-To: fritz@triguy.East.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: triguy.east.sun.com

In article 87ST03Qz76e400@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks writes:
 
B.C. poem deleted.

 Y'all should have figured I saved that strip and put it on my office
 wall. :-) 
 Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 

I guess this is only fair.  After all, I currently
have on my office wall the May 22nd "Zippy the
Pinhead", in which Zippy introduces Griffy to
an Opabinia and credits the strip to Stephen
Jay Gould.

Steve Fritzinger   --  steve.fritzinger@East.Sun.COM
The First Rule of Holes:
When you're in one, stop digging.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:24:22 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Sep3.122615.17553@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>	Evolutionist is a person that believes in macroevolution (only).

Damn, I guess I don't qualify -- I believe in microevolution as well
as macroevolution 8-) I also believe it's time for lunch.

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

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: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:26:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.154733.18325@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:

|>weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|>
|>>In answer to the question of how biological evolution is important to
|>>linguistics of all subjects, I know of two.  One is the question of the
|>>origin of language itself.  The second is the origin of the variety of
|>>languages.
|>
|>	You ignore the fact that languages have developed to simpler forms 
|>	not more complicated as the so-called evolution "theory" claims. 

Evolution says nothing about compexity, only about utility. If a mutated 60ft
slug turned out to be the most fit species to survive it would.

To disprove evolution you would have to point to an occasion when a language had
become useless but the culture underlying it had neverthless survived.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
From: rmathews@zeus.calpoly.edu (Bob Mathews)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 04:24:01 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
> What caused the origin of the very first cell?
> Did God make the first cell?  Yes or No?  It is a binary question.
> 
> You cannot answer, god did, but it did it by itself too.
>
> God and evolution are contradicting theories.

Evolution does _not_ deal with "the very first cell."  Without descent with
modification, evolution cannot take place.  The term you want is abiogenesis.
Whether the first "life" came into being through physical factors or special
creation has nothing to do with whether evolution works.

Furthermore, why is it impossible that god exists and did not actively
create life?  (By active, I mean direct, miraculous creation as opposed to
setting up the proper conditions for life to appear "on its own.")

swehtam bob

Newsgroups: talk.origins
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Test
Date: 26 Aug 92  22:49:00 EDT

Test. Please Ignore.

===
 This copy of Freddie 1.2 is being evaluated.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Keeping time twice a day
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:44:35 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


  rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>But the whole sauropod proposition is an interesting one.  I suspect
>old bronty didn't lie down unless she had to -- the legs could support
>her weight but that big belly couldn't.

Are you aware that many dinosaur species had a whole set of
bones, "belly ribs", running down the abdomen between the
sternum and the pubis?

---
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: talk.origins