HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Chimps and Humans
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:21:00 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <n0bbdt@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> Tag: Mark Isaak (isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak))
> And: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
>  
> AS> At least I'm not related to chimpanzees.
>  
> MI> "A serious question for Antti and any other Creationists who
> MI> feel like he does: What do you feel would be wrong with being
> MI> related to chimpanzees? Please note: I'm not asking why you
> MI> think you aren't related; I'm asking why, if you were, what
> MI> would be so bad."
>  
> Yes. Having the relatives over for Thanksgiving dinner:
>  
> Human:     "Say, Ungh, have some gravy with that?"
> Ungh:      "Ugh! Thuhhhh thumm urghah MORE BANANA!"
> Human:     "Okay, and you Mrs. Ungh?"
> Mrs. Ungh: "But I don't LIKE gravy on bananas!" (Married intra-species)
>  

Yep, now is a good time to put in a plug for the books of Gerald Durrell.
He wrote a really funny story about the time his mother had tea with a
couple of escaped chimpanzees.  After scolding her for opening the door
and inviting the chimps in, he was surprised to have her reply that the
chimps were better behaved than some of his guests!

> Other than that, I cannot think of any reason one would find the
> fact that one is related to chimpanzees distasteful. I'd prefer
> being related to horses via evolution, or Christy Brinkly's panties,
> but the Gods neglected to ask me my preferance two hundred millions
> years ago (then again, I was probably too busy sneeking up on grass
> to listen to Them).

Yep, knowing that people like Ted are from the same genetic pool gives
me nausea.

Sue
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Clay origin of life
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:29:46 GMT
Organization: Chevron

Another interesting subject I'd like to see discussed is the change in
the way creatures interacted back then versus now.  It is generally
believed that many of the organelles in our cells were once separate
organisms, and that our cells are the result of quite alot of symbiosis.
How about the topic of DNA?  Was it a later stage addition to RNA based
cells (sort of a DNA virus that hijacked the earlier cells)?

I'm looking forward to intelligent discussion, but expecting some flames
from the ignorant.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Antti's Improbabilities
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:28:04 GMT


asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>       I only think that probability 1/n , where n  > 1,000,000,000,000 is
>       extremely close to zero, so close that I could well say that it
>       never happens.

* * *  WARNING * * *  WARNING  * * *  THOUGHT EXPERIMENT AHEAD  * * *

* * *  RETRIEVE YOUR BRAIN FROM THE HAT-CHECK GIRL AT THE DOOR  * * *
* * *                BEFORE READING THIS MESSAGE                * * *

If we design a random number generator that will generate one number out of
1,000,000,000,000 possible output values, and we build it into hardware
so that we can generate 1,000,000 numbers per second, how many times would
you estimate it would generate the number 495,002,832,655 in a one month
period?

Further, to relate the issue to abiogenesis, we must first determine how many
of the 1,000,000,000,000 possible combinations produce a viable outcome
(successful abiogenesis).   Then, we must determine at what rate the
combinations are being generated.  Since the universe represents a massively 
parallel random number generator in this regard, I would expect this number 
to be a significant one, but we really don't know.

We don't really know either of these values.  To reiterate:

1. what percentage of the total number of possible combinations result in
   successful abiogenesis.

2. The rate at which combinations are (or were) being generated.

Without the answers to these, abiogenesis probability arguments reduce to
the "argument from ignorance".

Keith

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Grand Canyon  (was: "Hydrological sorting")
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:09:07 GMT

I too would like to visit the Grand Canyon sometime, but when I do so,
I would like to be with someone who knows something about paleontology,
or at least I would like to have learned something about that subject
myself.  Any suggestions?  (The more economical, the better!)

Also, I've heard that the weather can be pretty terrible there in the
winter, and that one should go in the Autumn or Spring.  True?

Should I be cross-posting to rec.travel?
-- 
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: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Running up the score on Colby
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:44:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.030206.19586@morrow.stanford.edu>,
salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
> 	Oh, by the way, this post from Ted is a repeat. Maybe he
> ought to try to get it into a FAQ. The trouble is it is not a
> frequently asked question. People should ignore it and Ted as well.
> Maybe someone ought to suggest that Valekowsky is just using his
> pseudoscience to make a bunch of Biblical metaphors sound historically
> right so the people who want us to believe everything in the Bible
> can sleep at night.

  Pehaps all of Ted's posts should be relegated to FAUQs (Frequently Answered
Unasked Questions).

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:21:30 GMT

In article <66@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.042118.22609@csis.dit.csiro.au>, prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb) writes:
[deletions]
>The problem I have here, Lamb, is that I am not easily able to believe that
>you simply missed the discussions which you have so conveniently omitted in
>claiming that my own sources prove me an idiot, and I am very rapidly
>losing the reservations which I used to have about calling people liars
>when they habitually attempt to produce effects using this sort of dishonest
>quoting and use of sources.
>
>In the entire world, if there's any one sort of person which I've no use for
>whatsoever, it's a flagrant or pathalogical liar.  
>
>I've no intention of wasting any more of my time writing new responses to your
>bullshit.  In the one similar case on t.o, namely that of Meritt, I've simply
>retained one or two standard posts which, to any reasonable observer, CLEARLY
>show the guy for what he is, and that is what I intend to do with YOU.
>
>I shall simply save this post and repost it to anything further which you
>might have to say on the subject of Rose's Pangaea article.  In my judgement,
>it tells any reasonable person anything and everything he might need to know
>regarding how seriously to take anything which you might have to say.

That's +12 for Peter. Way to go!

>-- 
>Ted Holden
>HTE
>

Scott
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: t.o., the home game
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:10:45 GMT

In article <97924@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>
>-1 if your post originates from a third world country... like
>Canada (he says, hoping to cheese of Larry and get a nasty
>email response 8-)

	*sigh* Biologists should stick to biology and stay  away from
areas they aren't qualified to comment on. The first world is the USA
and its allies (eg: Canada, Japan, Airstrip One), the second world is
The (former) USSR and its minions in the Evil Empire, and  the third
world is composed of those nations who either choose not to belong to,
or are not worth the bother of forcing into the first or second world.

	Mesoamericans have different definitions, I am told.

								James Nicoll
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: What makes a creationist?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:57:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.040636.13833@morrow.stanford.edu>,
salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
> in this group. I don't know of any Creationists who have posted
> here who are biologists.

  Well, there is Antti (snicker)

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Hair and Feathers
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:59:06 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation  Sunnyvale California


   keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:
> 
> The other night on late night cable TV, they were showing some old
> Ripley's films as filler.  On one of the films, there was an example of
> a small family of chickens that had been bred for hair instead of
> feathers.  A short motion picture segment of several of these chickens
> were shown, including a closeup or two.  

Almost certainly these birds had hair-like feathers, instead of
true hair.  (like a kiwi)

You can't "breed for" a point mutation like a feathers-to-hair
switch unless some of the population members already have
the trait.  On the other hand, it's simple to breed for some
extreme in a complicated family of traits with already-existing
variation, like feather shape.

I'm betting that the chickens have broad, fan-shaped feathers
with barbules that don't interlock.  Many "fancy" breeds already
have similar feathers within the neck ruff.
 
---
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Use of quotes around "evolutionist"
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:59:52 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 weird
>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 meaningful in evolutionary terms.
>Ironically, perhaps, because of the creationists.

What is your reference for "independent drives"?  From the experiments
I've done with computer simulated evolution, one thing that I note that
explains the fruit fly experiments quite well, is you don't usually get
a characteristic if there are no selection pressures for it.  In the
fruit fly experiments, you first would have to determine what it would
take to make a non-fruit-fly, and then add selection pressures for it.
Now a fruit fly isn't going to become something like an arachnid or
crustacean or something overnight, it will have to transition through
intermediate stages.  The kind of pressures you would have to exert on
a fruit fly would be those which gradually attempt to change its
environment to the extent that the adaptation process would require it
to become something other than a fruit fly.  So for one, you would have
to define what would make it NOT a fruit fly, which isn't easy to do,
and a fruit fly ain't likely to change into something else if it is
surviving just fine as a fruit fly.  Selecting for random anomalies
just means that is what you are going to get, anomalous fruit flies.
You'd have to select for a different diet perhaps, and probably a
series of other things that once adapted to, would cause the organism
to be considered something other than a fruit fly.  And even then,
I have no idea how long it might take.

Creationist clamoring about how fruit flies have never become anything
else, is simply more "reptile giving birth to a bird" straw-nonsense,
as no evolutionist (there's that word again) claims that such things
happen in such a fashion.  And if the creationists don't realize they
are proposing a straw-argument, they are clearly unqualified to critique
evolution, with such a demonstration of their ignorance of its claims.

Keith
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Holden and the canine set
Summary: hip displasia in dogs is not primarily a size-related problem
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:40:20 GMT

: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: In many other cases, such as dogs, disfunction due to size means real
: disfunction, hip problems etc. 

This implies that Ted thinks that hip displasia in dogs is caused by
mechanical difficulties of size.  This is clearly not the case.  It is
known to be genetic in origin, environmental in onset, and size is
definitely not the dominant factor.  There are pekingese doglets that
*have* hip displasia, and 200+ lb mastiffs that *don't*. 

There is much more to be said about dogs in specific, but the main
point to keep in mind is that Ted's thesis that "bigger is better"
barring mechanical limits is simply incorrect.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Clarification on Microevolution and Macroevolution
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:02:03 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct15.161851.21477@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes
|> >
|> >The onus is on the one explaining to explain in such a fashion that
|> >his readers can understand.  Telling us to go away until we are
|> >smart enough to talk to you is likely to be counterproductive and
|> >doesn't improve communication.
|> >
|> 
|> Maybe I was a bit irrational, but I was so schocked that the repliers had never
|> heard about dynamical systems because they are crucial in the understanding of 
|> life. 

I don't recall anyone saying that they had never heard of dynamical
systems.   I know that what I asked you to do was to justify your
claims about them and their relationship to evolution.

|> Yes, and that is the theoretical limit of genetic diversity, but there 
|> is more to it than that. Dynamic systems are dynamical (oh, really), 
|> but they are also to a certain extent rigid. When, of all possibilities, 
|> a path in evolution has been 'chosen', there are restrictions in the 
|> ways this system can change (without increasing complexity).

Please explain in more detail.

jon.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Hot Air (Was: HOLDEN)
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:00:38 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

Tag: Eric Sieferman (sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu)
 
ES> "Anyone got a punchline for this one:
ES> How many catastrophists does it take to shift the orbit of Venus?"
 
Well, if hot air could do it, Ted would be all that's required.
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Microevolution and Macroevolution
Date: 9 Oct 92 11:47:58 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1992Oct7.094656.23871@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
 deleted

>There is a huge mixup here. It is due to the defenition of scale. When
>creationists talk of micro- and macro- they mean the MAGNITUDE of change of a
>specie. The above defenitions, which also are correct, imply the SCALE upon which
>evolution occurs (i.e. antnests are due to macroevolution).
>
>These are separate topics in evolution. Let me clear things up a bit.
>
>In the meaning of magnitude:
>
>
>microevolution is the change which occurs within a specie. In short, diversity.
>macroevolution is the change which "transforms" a specie into another. In short,
>INCREASE in complexity.

(Assuming the above distorted definitions to be valid):
Do you propose that there is a different genetic mechanism underlying
macro and microevolution? If yes, what? If no, how do you draw the
line between micro and macro?
Why does speciation have to involve an 'increase in complexity'?

>These are separate topics in evolution. Let me clear things up a bit.

Convince us with concrete mechanistic explanations why these are
separate topics.

>What creationists also has pointed out: Evolutionary change, more often than not,
> occurs suddenly and in steps. Which is absolutely true. 

They've manipulated the meaning of the terms to suit their interests by
 describing an alleged barrier on variation that prevents speciation;
what this barrier is, they won't explain. 
cheers mike
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Antti's File of "Nonreligious Objections" (was: Thanks etc)
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:15:08 GMT

lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>Are you an idiot, or just pretending to be one? You've been asked
>several times how this number can be justified.

	No, I just adjust to your level of understanding :)

>Particularly considering you apparently got this idea from a book
>which nowhere gives this number, and which disagrees with your
>conclusions.

	It claims that the probability of abiogenesis (is that the correct 
	word ?) is just the same as monkeys typing the whole production of
	Shakespeare. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:12:10 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <ksand-041092173516@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|
|I don't know much about the biology studies in Finnish universities,
|however I'm quite confident that evolution is part of the curriculum.
|It's nearly impossible to avoid it, unless you are stubborn. 

Actually, if the curriculum is anything like that of universities here in
the states, it is impossible to graduate with a degree in biology without
studying evolution, even *if* you are stubborn - there are invariably
several *required* courses that cover various aspects of evolution.
[I believe that at K.U. there are about 3-4 courses that between them
cover the basics of evoolution, and then several advanced courses that
cover certain specific areas in more detail].  


-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: a farewell to Antti
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:07:50 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Oct7.144146.23770@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 	At least I'm not related to chimpanzees. 

Could you scientifically justify why you aren't related to chimanzees,
thanks? See .profile below for more clues.

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.
Xref: sparky talk.origins:13021 alt.atheism:19085
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 350 lb super-athlete goat?
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:38:07 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <65@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.054419.25692@scic.intel.com>, sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley) writes:
> 
> *>The t.o regular crew says no problem.  Fine;  you should be able to show 
> *>me a goat, a mountain sheep, a burro, or some such animal which, at around
> *>300 - 400 lbs, can lift 2000 lbs.  
>  
> *Or maybe you could actually pay attention to the several posts which
> *have described gorillas as being able to do that or more?  But then,
> *that would have you paying attention to facts, and we know that's
> *just not going to happen...
> 
> I suspect me paying attention to facts is a good deal likelier than you
> paying attention to the nature of these debates/arguments/pissing-contests,
> or whatever you want to call them.
> 
> I'd have to see a gorilla lift 2000 lbs in any meaningful fashion, and I don't
> mean from standing straight up minus 1.5 inches to standing straight up,
> as per Paul Anderson's famous 3000+ lb yoke lift.  That's meaningless.
> 
> But that's not what I was talking about at all, and the entire subject of
> gorillas, which are omniverous and, I assume mostly fruit eaters, is 
> irrelevant here.  


Sheesh Ted, get a clue, will ya?  In the wild gorillas eat mostly vegetation.
They are NOT omniverous!  There is no substitute for learning about a topic
before you post on it.  I recommmend it highly.  If you can't find a book
on gorillas, give your local zoo a call.

> 
> A sauropod dinosaur was low man on the food chain, which is why most of
> his weight was taken up by the digestive system needed to deal with huge
> volumes of low value food stuffs.
> 

Why else do you think gorillas have big bellies?  All the vegetation they eat.
And if you think fruit is a high value food stuff then you obviously never
eat any.


Sue

> That is why such a creature would be very much weaker than a guy like Kaz
> its own size, who was mostly muscle.
> 
> So, as a fair contrast, I'm asking the t.o crew to show me an example of
> a creature which is roughly Kaz' size, which is also low on the food chain
> (which leaves out gorillas, big cats, and all other such contenders), and
> which can lift 2000 lbs.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ted Holden
> HTE
>