HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (David Plumpton)
Subject: Re: To Joe Duffy and T.O. et al. - re: Abiogenesis (fwd)
Organization: University Of Wollongong
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 05:27:51 GMT

jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:

>	I can't do anymore with abiogenesis without reading these leading
>opinions.  I encourage others to take this up - I believe someone is
>constructing an abiogenesis FAQ (which is sorely needed;  is that you,
>Dan?)

>	But briefly, these are some useful preliminary steps:

>	1.  Synthesis of chemical precursors

>	2.  Reaction of chemical precursors to form complex 
>intermediates, specifically peptides --> proteins --> nucleic acids.

>	3.  Formation of a lipo"sphere", creating high concentrations
>within the sphere and a membrane exclusion process to help
>eliminate harmful destructive species (free radicals).

>	4.  Self-replication of a chemical entity.

Quite some time ago, I read an article about a special chemical reaction
claiming to meet all of these points (and more).  It was in a World Book
Encyclopedia Science Year Book, circa 1976, and discussed a little thingamy
called (if memory serves) a "Proteinoid Microsphere".  Apparantly, if some
water containing amino acids and polypeptides is quickly boiled and then
slowly cooled (imagine some lava flowing into a pool of murky water), that a
polypeptides is built up, which then forms into little bubbles.  You guessed
it, the Proteinoid Microsphere.  These guys supposedly have a nucleus of
sorts, a membrane insulating them from the outside world, and for the
incredible finale, *reproduce*.

It wasn't a long article, but it was particularly interesting from an
abiogenesis point of view.  Perhaps somebody with a stack of World Book
Sciene Year Books could track down the article in question (not exactly
a concise reference, huh? :-( )
-- 
/------------------------------\ /-------------------------------\
I       David Plumpton          I     There is a holy trinity:    |
I plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au I N Tesla, R Feynman and C Sagan  |
\------------------------------/ \-------------------------------/
From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:01:24 GMT
Subject: human lysenkoism?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.origins

I would be interested to hear any research which has been done on the 
possibility of genetic memory. (sort of a human Lysenkoism  ;-))

please e-mail to rks@uccs-annex.csn.org

thanks....
From: ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin: how did it develop ?
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:51:47 GMT
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


I would like to remind Lionel Tun that most of the
860 million people of India, 120 million people of
Pakistan, 110 million people of Bangladesh don't
belong to one of his three `main' racial groupings
of white, black or yellow.  Moreover, the population
explosion in these countries shows that these mixed
breeds are astonishingly fertile :-):-):-)

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.origins:10821 sci.skeptic:15881
From: shalan@engr.latech.edu (Shivram Halan)
Subject: Re: RAP acronym?
Reply-To: shalan@engr.latech.edu
Organization: Louisiana Tech University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:58:23 GMT


	RAP stands for  

	"R idiculous    A pelike   P erformance"

	

	 shiv
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Fred Hoyle followup (ignore if redundant)
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:11:27 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <BtpE2B.1no.2@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
|
|>A theory which postulates an unknown physical process is supposed to be
|>taken seriously??
|
|Well, that's not fair. He postulated a process which explained the
|known data, just as Maxwell and Rutherford did, 'back when. His
|wasn't the only suggestion which fit the data, and when better data
|came in, the Hoyle C-field no longer fit, and was dropped. That's the
|way science goes. In his day, he was a good astronomer.

Yep, in his day.  But when he clung to his steady state universe long
after the evidence refuted it soundly he stopped being one.

The guy seems to be about as unable to drop a cherished theory as
a Creationist.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & Evolution
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:05:48 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep2.063747.15998@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, arkdr@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Dave Rindos) writes:
> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>Does homosexuality have a useful significance within the theory of
>>evolution?
> 
> For the GENETIC theory of evolution to be used in the "explanation" of
> homosexulity (in and of itself, a poorly defined term!) we would FIRST
> have to establish that it is biological rather than culturally defined. 
> 
> Since this is not the case -- that is, that sexual behaviour, like
> most other variable human behaviours, is a CULTURAL act -- then no
> point exists in even attempting to come up with scenarios based upon
> traditional notions of genetic advantage and conjectures derived from it.
> 

I beg to differ with you on this, sexual behaviour is not exclusively
a cultural act.  Many behaviours are being found to be more biological
than first thought.  For an excellent book on this, read _Nature's 
Thumbprint_.  There is increasing evidence that many aspects of personality
and behaviour in humans is inherited.  With two biological sons and one
adopted, plus two nephews that I have had quite a lot of contact with,
I can see similarities of personality and even learning disabilities
in the cousins.

Sue

> Dave,
> having a very good idea of what constitutes gay,
> a vague notion of what constitutes a homosexual act,
> but no idea of what constitutes "homosexuality" in a rigorous sense.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Humungosaurs, etc.
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:31:04 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug31.225103.13300@cc.uow.edu.au> plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (David Plumpton) writes:
|In all the postings recently concerning the "felt effect of gravity", and
|whether or not the largest dinosaurs would have been able to stand or walk,
|I haven't seen anybody mention that these big boys were thought to have
|lived in *water*, with just their heads sticking up.  An indication of this
|is that they tend to have their nostrils on the top of their heads.
|
Mostly because that hypothesis has been pretty well discredited for about
15 years now.  There is overwhelming evidence that they were no more `aquatic'
than modern elephants.  (Which is to say they may have waded in shallow water
a bit, ay need, but they hardly made a career of it).

The evidence:
	1) the shape of the torso, which more closely resembles that of an
	   elephant than it does a hippopotamus (which is aquatic).

	2) the fact that water pressure at neck depth would have been
	   sufficient to prevent breathing.

	3) the fact that sauropod skeletons are found preferentially in
	   the relatively terrestrial types of sediments (just like
	   elephant skeletons, and unlike hippopotamus skeletons).

	4) the fact that high nostrils are found in many terrestrial animals
	   (including elephants).

	5) ....

well, I think that is sufficient, more would just be overkill.

(Note, it *does* appear that Anatosaurus (now called Edmontosaurus)
actually *was* semi-aquatic, just like the old reconstructions, but
that appears to be mostly due to luck, not proper analysis).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 22:40:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.153745.9579@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>What disturbs me is the trend to
>use the presence of {fossils, isochron dates, sediment layers, etc.} as
>EVIDENCE for the non-existence of God.

What disturbs me is your claim, in the complete lack of any evidence
that I have ever seen, that such a trend exists.  Do you actually have
evidence for your claim, or are you just parroting creationist
propoganda?  How many evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, and
geologists have you even met, much less discussed religion with?

-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Logic and God
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 02 Sep 92  18:03:00

 > From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
 > Message-ID: 1992Sep1.170644.18669@rhrk.uni-kl.de

 > Joseph Duffy writes about original videotapes showing origins of
 > life:

 >>If you follow the original thread you'll understand that I don't
 >>think either side has such direct evidence that they can produce. Because
 >>of this I don't believe that either side can draw an "inescapable
conclusion
 > ".

 > Okay.  Can we agree on this formula:

 > The evolution side cannot draw an *inescapable* conclusion, but it
 > can draw a conclusion that is really extremely difficult to escape
 > from without ignoring vast amounts of data, or the real world as a whole.

You can escape by gnawing your brain off.


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Real americans don't     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| pledge allegiance, they  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| make the government earn | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| it.                      | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 160' Diplodocus...  429,895 lbs
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:41:54 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <2877@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|For the benefit of Mssrs. Throop & Friesen, the concensus of opinion
|for the tracks found in Morocco and listed as breviparopus is that the
|creature was 160' long.

I'll accept that provisionally.

|Let's assume the worst possible case (from my perspective), that the creature
|was a diplodocus, i.e. of all the various kinds of sauropods, the very 
|lightest.  Assume also the normal figures which you see for diplodocus, i.e.
|around 70', 18 tons.
|
|160/70 = 2.2857
|
|2.2857^3 = 11.94
|
|11.94 * 36000 = 429,895 lbs.
|
|Sorry about that.

That assumes that girth increases proportionally with length - a very
dubious assumption, especially for a diplodicid.

Why not try a simple increase in length with no increase in girth?
This gives 2.29*18 tons => 41 tons.

Now, this assumption is probably as unrealistic as yours, but it is at least
possible.   Thus we have an interesting problem, the estimates for the
weight of this 160' sauropod range from 41 to 216 tons. Where does the
truth lie?  Probably somewhere in between.  But it still leaves a < 100 ton
weight in the likely range.

Actually, I believe I have seen smaller estimates for Diplodicus anyway,
as small as 11 tons, I believe, which makes your "high" estimate 132 tons.


You see, the problem is that there are too many uncertainties in these
estimates to get a meaningful wieght estimate from mere *footprints*.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Abiogenesis vs the Pyramids
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:20:03 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy)

In article <1992Sep1.205004.17772@asl.dl.nec.com>, duffy@aslss02 (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>So yes we are nondogmatically convinced that life began or that a
>cell formed at some distant time in the past beyond our observation,
>or that the pyramids were built but in your words do we "have the
>foggiest notion" of how it was done?

I'm sorry, I can't parse the above.  I'll gibber and blather for a bit,
and maybe that'll answer the above to some degree. 

>If our only present knowledge of complex things being produced (things of
>a functional or mechanistic complexity) requires intelligent intervention
>then when we see other things with these marks we can only conclude that
>they originated in a similar fashion. 

Huh?  Do you know of any form of intelligence that can manufacture cells
from raw compounds in some lab somewhere?  I don't.

First off, remember we don't know most of what goes on in the cells.  There
are thousands of enzymes, and at best maybe 10% are well-studied.  New
mechanisms are being discovered quite regularly.

Does this detail throw abiogenesis in disrepute?  Not in the last.  People
knew the Pyramids were built by people long before they knew what was inside
them.

>So my question then is this: What present mechanisms are there that
>would strongly allow us to conclude that cells were organized by natural
>(non intelligent) processes?

Several dozen such mechanisms.  Bits and pieces of "first cell" models
seem quite doable.  No particular mechanism is convincing overall, but
the sum total of possibilities makes the conclusion that *some* pathway
exists unavoidable.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:38:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.205004.17772@asl.dl.nec.com>, duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com
(Joseph Duffy) writes:
> So my question then is this: What present mechanisms are there that
> would strongly allow us to conclude that cells were organized by natural
> (non intelligent) processes?

  What present mechanisms are there that would strongly allow us to conclude
that cells were organized by intelligent (non natural) processes?  If you go out
and make a cell there is a Nobel prize in it for shure.

  On the other hand, all the parts in the cells can be produced by natural
forces, and brought together by them too.  That does not mean God wasn't
involved, but there is no reason to suppose he must have been.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: _Evolution From Space_ odds, part 2
Keywords:  Hoyle, chance, probability, histones, amino acids, DNA
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:53:10 GMT

This is a continuation on the posting on _Evolution From Space_ : 
this deals with the number 20^100, found on page 27:

The shortest histone polypeptide is H4 with rather more than a
hundred amino acids, and H1 with rather more than two hundred
is the longest.  Their function must be considerably more subtle
than merely structural, because cells are evidently very 'fussy'
in making sure they have the histones dead right for their needs.
Thus the genes which code for the histones exist on the DNA in
adjacent (tandem) clusters, with several hundred gene copies in
each cluster.  Moreover, the histone amino acid sequences are
remarkably invariant across the whole of biology.  Thus H4 has only
two amino acid variations between cattle and the garden pea.  To
obtain what is an essentially unique sequence by random choices
from equal quantities of twenty kinds of amino acid would require
on the order of 20^100 trials (there being about a hundred amino
acids in the sequence).  Once again we have a number larger than
the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible
in the largest astronomical telescopes.  This is for H4 alone,
so there is no question here of whether or not a group of
biomolecules are independent of each other.

Analysis of these odds will be appreciated.

-- 
"All religions make me wanna throw up!"
"All religions make me sick!" - Dead Kennedys, Religious Vomit

corey@sdf.lonestar.org                       ..!uunet!convex!egsner!sdf!corey
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Antti omits the details
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:21:49 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Sep2.173643.11566@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington) writes:

>	I have been wondering, how could Huia-bird have developed, when both 
>	sexes use their bills together to get nourishment from flowers. 

Antti, coming from you an argument from ignorance ("I don't see how it
would work, so therefore it can't work") is hardly impressive. Could-
n't it have evolved from a lower level of cooperation? How about
providing the details

>	Then, in the wedge migratory birds (cranes, swans, scoters, geese etc.)
>	there is an interesting solution: Birds help each other to move to a
>	wintering site, and in this order the most powerful individuals must
>	take the heaviest and most dangerous tasks as leaders of the wedge. In
>	this way usually happens that those birds die more than normal members
>	in the wedge. That sounds silly, if you think of the natural selection.

Antti, you claim to be some wizard biologist whose specialty is birds --
haven't you ever seen a wedge fly!? There is no single lead bird, the
flying V "slides" as it moves so the point bird changes frequently! Open
your eyes!! In addition, occasionally the V will disband into a
seemingly random mess for a few seconds then reform. Furthermore,
even if we grant your unsupported premise that lead birds exist and
suffer higher mortality (reference please), that is only part of the
story. Mortality is only one component of fitness -- if there are
species with single lead birds, maybe the leaders get first pick of
territories on arrival. The average boost in repro success from this
could outweigh the average mortality risk. Again, provide the details.
 	                     
>	Some species have taken properties from the individuals of totally 
>	different groups. Parasitic Jaeger uses the hunting strategy of 
>	European Sparrowhawk, Sandpipers and wagtails act similarly etc. .

Do they hunt the same or similar species? Since they are all similar
morphologically (they are all birds), is it really so hard to
imagine convergent hunting tactics evolving for the same or similar
prey? Again, provide the _details_ of these systems along with a
thorough explanation of how evolutionary principles are violated.

Oh, and answer the question of why I can't count _Tragopogon_ as
a speciation example. I'll also post the details of a new example
of speciation I just read about tonight.

>		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: stcmille@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen C. Miller)
Subject: Re: Evolution board game
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:51:08 GMT

It sounds like this game will take several billion years to play - and
you'll have to play twice as long if  you want to have an intelligent
conversation...
-- 
--------------------
=
(former rock star turned grad student)
Steve Miller	 		    stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: patricka@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Patrick Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: re: He visited ICR museum
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:56:01 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


My God
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:22:20 GMT

cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:

>In article <1992Sep2.171035@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>[for brevities sake I am answering all 3 of Antti's posts in one post]
>>> And if this is the 
>>>	criteria, languages have changed into worse. It was said in my Finnish 
>>>	lessons that you can't translate "epajarjestelmallistyttamattomyydes-  
>>>	saankopahan" to English. That about expressivity. 

>It's not only untranslatable, it's not Finnish.

	It is. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:36:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.004002.4893@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
}In <1992Aug27.125924.21174@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <1992Aug27.050110.21622@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
}>}All life on this planet can only have a single point of origin.
}>Why?
} What caused the origin of the very first cell?

You misunderstand.  Why MUST there be a "first cell".

} Did God make the first cell?  Yes or No?  It is a binary question.

The wrong binary question.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: ICR and Hugh Ross
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:28:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I have a single extra copy of each of the July and August 1991 issues
of the ICR's _Acts & Facts_ and _Impact_ periodicals.  The two _Impact_s
are attacks on Hugh Ross.  If anyone would like them, let me know.
(First person to ask gets them.  If anyone else still wants them, you
can get them from the ICR--they claim there's a charge of $.35 or so,
but I bet you can get them for the asking.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: White skin -- how did it develop
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:01:14 GMT



"Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>So misuse of religion for the purpose of the Inquisition doesn't disprove
>or prove anything about the existence of God, or the historicity of the
>Resurrection, for example, but it does say a great deal about the validity
>of that religion's system of morality. Probably the most accurate statement
>would be that religious morality is not all-encompassing,as it claims to be,
>because it is powerless to prevent its own misuse. Something more is always
>needed (this is true of Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism and probably of
>all religions).

Good point.  I'd be curious as to what kind of "something more's" you
might be thinking about (if any).  I figure one of them is "reason", but
it is not a panacea either.

Keith