HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: evolution of sex (addendum)
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:07:09 GMT
Organization: SMDS Inc., Concord, MA

In article <3610131@hp-ptp.ptp.hp.com>, davew@hp-ptp.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller) writes:

> As such, I am pondering several aspects of sexual reproduction. One
> question that comes to mind that I'd like to hear thoughts on (Chris?)
> is, why did sexual reproduction develop in a bipolar manner? It seems to
> me that recombination opportunities would be more efficient if sexual
> organisms were entirely symmetric, and could exchange genetic
> information with any other member of the species, not just the opposite
> sex.

There is a traditional argument that runs something like this:  Consider
a species which is originally monogametious [there's such a word now!].
Sundry members will vary in the amount of wealth (food molecules, etc)
they include with the gamete.  The argument is that there is an advantage
to producing a gamete with more wealth than average [the offspring have
a better chance to survive] or less than average [more gametes can be
produced.]  The flip side of the coin is that when fat meets fat or thin
meets thin there is waste.  Fat/fat is a waste of resources and thin/thin
dies.  However, suppose that a mutation happens that lets fat and thin
signal each other [this isn't too hard -- the little buggers are seeking
each other out anyway -- follow that chemical gradient].   Then positive
feed back works and we drive to bipolar sex.

An entirely different claim is that bipolar sex is a refinement of the
immunological response.  Consider a little gamete waiting for another
little gamete to merge with.  It has to, so to speak, open the gates and
let in this foreign bit of DNA.  However there are lots of nasty critters
out there that want to invade and unload their DNA.  So the gamete needs
a password, an identification tag, to recognize a fellow gamete.  The
identification tag can be the same for each or complementary.  Life prefers
complementary (lock and key) you know.  [The actual argument is much more
sophisticated than this and, to be honest, I don't really know how it
runs.]

Personally, I prefer the theory that sex is a viral infection.
-- 
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: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Subject: Re: Ignoring Facts
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:24:13 GMT

In article <BME43A.Es1@world.std.com> I wrote:
>Not bright enough for your scenario, maybe, but it would be ludicrous
>to consider any tale about Seven Macaw as descriptive of Venus. The
>Mayans were quite sophisticated astronomically, and their gods each
>had an assigned star. Seven Macaw's was Ursa Major, and the stories
>about him reflect the role of this star.  The importance of Ursa
>Major, as I recall, was not its brightness but that its appearance on
>the horizon signified the beginning of the hurricane season.

The Mayans were apparently much more sophisticated astronomically than
this writer, since they probably wouldn't have forgotten that Ursa
Major is a constellation and not a star. Oh well, with that correction
the rest of what I had to say still sounds ok...
-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Summary: ???
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:44:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsm.1992Apr15.234452.2133
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <rdippold.703373567@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com
(Ron Dippold) writes:

> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:

> >    Has anyone ever read the treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the
> >Donation of Constantine?  ("De falso credita et ementita constantini 
> >donatione declamatio", English translation, Yale University Press, 
> >1922.)  It is an interesting example of critical thinking, and it 
> >came to mind when I read this.

> The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" might be an interesting
> comparison as well.

Well, possibly as a homework exercise in a course on Valla's methods,
though (despite their poisonous nature and unfortunately wide influence)
the Protocols were never a lynch pin in a serious struggle for political
influence on the grand scale, as the Donatio was until Valla exploded it.
Until Valla, the high medieval Church took the Donatio in roughly the
same way Americans take the Constitution.

Valla's method has its own history, in the courts and schools of Italy
and the Roman curia itself, but he is one of the greatest early heros
of rational, critical thought in a reawakening Europe: for the courage
and perception to turn a sharp criticial mind on the very foundation 
myths of his contemporaries.  He is the grandfather of the Enlightenment,
the great-grandfather of scientific history, and at least an avuncular
presence in all empirical science, whether historical in character (as
in paleontology, for example) or not.  It's an interesting thought to
imagine what Stephen Jay Gould might do in an essay which took Valla
as one of the structural members (Gould's essays usually have two points
between which he lays out an argument.)

I'm delighted to know that there has been a translation of Valla; I am
too lazy to work through his Latin, but would be more than interested
in looking for it englished.
-- 
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: ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford)
Subject: Re: Single Source versus Dispersed Source Evolutionism
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:12:23 GMT


dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> 
> Just curious to know which position the experts today in the Theory of Evolution
> happen to take:
> 
> [options deleted]
> 
> Derek.
> 
> 
> PS. Is there an option I should have said, that I forgot?

Well, I'm not an expert, but in this case it doesn't take one.  :-)

  Yes, there are at least two options actually held by many current 
  evolutionary biologists which you forgot.

  i) God created the original self-replicating creatures. all the 
     diversity we see today evolved from this one life form without
     any additional intervention from God.

 ii) God created the original self-replicating creatures, and
     from time to time manipulated events so as to guide the evolution
     to its current point.  In this case, it's most reasonable to 
     assume that He's not done.

 BTW, it is usually helpful if you start out demonstrating that you have
 a grasp of the basics.  Confusing evolution and abiogenesis does not
 engender any confidence that you know enough to make intelligent questions.

Dan Ford


P.S.  Why is it that so many people have such a hard time making the
      simple distinction between evolution and abiogenesis.  It really
      doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference.  I'm
      not impressed by the intellectual prowess of individuals who
      cannot or will not make the distinction.

P.S.S. The fact that I itemized these other options you forgot, does 
       not in any way constitute an endorsement of these particular
       options.  They are simply very real options, held by many
       modern scientists.
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Four Chambered Heart, Development in Humans
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date:  8 Apr 92 02:26:46 GMT

I have been able to find evidence of transitional phases in the
development of the heart in humans from a three to four chambered
anatomy that generally parallels the phyletic progression in
fishes to mammals.

The following is from "Developmental Anatomy", L. B. Arey,
	W. B. Saunders Co., 1942 pg 321

	``Internal Changes in the Heart

	In an [human] embryo of 5 mm., the heart contains three
as yet undivided chambers (1) the *sinus venosus* opening into [...]
the atrium (2) the bilaterally dialated *atrium* communicating in
turn by a common canal with (3) the primative *ventricle* [...]
This is the type of heart found in adult fishes [...] [Birds] and
mammals have a four-chambered heart, as a result of septa which
arrise independantly in the atrium, ventricle, and bulbus [the latter
is incorportated into the right ventricle]. Amphibians and reptiles
have intermediate types, with partially separated atria and ventricles.

	Important changes [...] include (1) the partitioning of the
common atrium into right and left chambers (2) the absorption of the
sinus venosus into the wall of the right atrium and of the pulmonary
veins into the left atrium; (3) The division of the atrial-ventricular
canal into two canals; (4) the merging of the bulbus into the [...]
right ventricle; (5) the partitioning of the single ventricle [...];
(6) the longitudional division of the bulbus into the aorta and
pulmonary artery [...] most of these go on simulaneously.''

Bruce Salem
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 24 Karat Fundamentalism
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:02:56 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr3.145536.23772@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>
>Ahem. As an example of an _isolated_ act of special creation, would you
>allow a person with a missing leg or withered being miraculously healed,
>or eyesight restored to a person with a missing optic nerve? If so, I
>have personally read the work of people who have observed an act of
>special creation.
>
No, I don't think that a miracle (even a verified miracle) is acceptable
proof of special creation of the earth and life.  There are many Christians
who accept evolution, but nonetheless believe that though God *could* have 
created in a manner consistent with a literal reading of Genesis, 
based on available scientific evidence, he probably did not.  If one 
explains miracles as incidents in which God chooses to supersede normal
scientific laws, then they prove nothing about creation vs evolution.
(Though they could provide compelling evidence of the existence of God
to someone in the right place at the right time.)

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
                Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split   
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.

 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Arno.Wouters@phil.ruu.nl (Arno Wouters)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: big fungus again
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:13:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Dept. of Philosophy, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

In article <83492@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) wrote:
> 
> 
> In this weeks Nature, researchers report finding a single fungal 
> organism that spans at least 15 hectares, weights 10,000+ kg and 
> is 1500 years old. The fungus was found in a hardwood forest in
> northern Michigan. 
> 	
> REFERENCE
> Smith, et. al., 1992, The fungus _Armillaria bulbosa_ is among
> the largest and oldest living organisms, Nature 356: 428-431
> 

I have always thought that April Fools day was a piece of Dutch 
folklore. Itnow seems to grow rank in the States!
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Scriptural Authority Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Distribution: na
Date: 16 Apr 92 07:06:20 GMT

mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:

>You have all the earmarks of someone who, having "escaped" evangelical
>Christianity, still sees the world (only, with the sign changed) in its
>stark and violent terms.

	I understand how you can come to that conclusion, but such a
characterization of me is tempered by the fact that I recognize that
the way people use Christian faith is complex and not internally
consistant, nor should it be so. There is wide latitude for a variety
of approaches that would contradict one another.

	I am arguing about TENDANCIES at the core of the tradition
that in our religion point to the erroneous outcome of
Creationism, not that all Christians are bigots or Creationists,
or what have you.  And, I can say that we must expect the worst
with the best. The selection for the most considered and careful
views of thoughtful people is not strong enough to oppose every
half-baked oaf who calls himself Christian. For me to conclude
that the whole enterprize of Christianity cannot, therefore, be
trusted, may seem extreme to you, if reasonable to me.

	Matt has obviously taken my warnings and criticisms personally.
Maybe he will cool off and tend to his own garden.

Bruce Salem
From: bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ignoring Facts
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:02:18 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.

In article <2711@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>
>Sue Bishop and a few others continue to accuse me of ignoring "facts"
>in these posts.
>
>Consider the facts which Bishop and the others are quite happy to
>ignore.
>
>
>Worlds in Collision  begins with an application of logic to the
>historical record, beginning with the book of Joshua in the OT:

[Pages of mythological drivel deleted]

But Ted, in another post, discussing Arctic weather conditions you stated
that written history went back only as far as the Roman Empire. Now you
are presenting all sorts of stories from long before the foundation of the
Roman Empire, which you seem to regard as solid unimpeachable fact.
As usual you want it both ways when it suits your ridiculous point of
view.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!ukc!stc!bruce
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
Xref: sparky talk.origins:4413 talk.religion.misc:7363
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:31:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr15.195319.25688@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> kjp@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (karl.j.pfaff..jr) writes:
>I read this group occasionally and notice that most of the questioning of 
>belief is directed toward the creationist side of the table. Does anyone
>have a thought (I'm sure you do) on what the effect on this group would be
>if creation was found to be true? 
>
>I'm curious, because the idea of religion vs science seems to be an additional
>division of subgroups within the main evolution/creation elements.  But if God
>does exist, then His existence would be fact and would have to be incorporated 
>into our consideration of science.  
>
>A lot of "what if's" seem to be exchanged on this net, so lets try this one.

Indeed, without His existence we would not exist.  Independantly of how you
want to define "shapeless void", we know that such was once the state of our
universe before life on earth.  All that we know was swirling superheated
matter that _somehow_ came to be as it is today.  There is a _BIG_ problem
with this happening by chance: 1) the universe naturally tends to disorder
(increasing entropy) and there would therefore be a near infinitely small
chance that, say, a protein would "happen". 2) Even if it did, the
probability that it would survive, and in fact flourish in seeming mockery of
chaos theory, approaches NULL.  Therefore I am very, very confident in saying
that, at the very least, some outside ordering energy must be responsible for
the amazing diversity and complexity, and yet unity of everything we know.
"Ordering" is the key... Energy of itself does not tend to get put to good
work - the natural tendency is to dissipate in the least interesting fashion
possible.  "Ordering" implies - even demands - intelligence, so all of a
sudden you have God in the picture.  Especially when one considers the
immensity of what science has discovered, and has yet to discover, about how
it all works.

Another interesting twist is that there does not seem to be enough matter in
the universe (dark or otherwise) for the universe to be cyclic.  Thus what
happened the split second before the "big bang" is still a mystery.  Of
course I think God did it, so I don't really have a problem with it :-)

More to come, for sure....

John M.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Coffin Creation Seminar Part II
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:31:52 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost

In article <1992Apr08.013445.4413@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com> ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford) writes:

>5.	Later (in a small group), I was able to ask him about the Marsupial 
>problem, to which he responded:  That is a question that we don't 
>have an answer for yet.  But there is significant research from fossils 
>in the Sahara indicating that species that today have a very limited 
>ecosystem might have had broader ranges in the past.  His conclusion 
>was that the Marsupials once inhabited very large ranges of the 
>globe.

	"His" conclusion is the conclusion of evolutionary biologists
also. Marsupial fossils are found all over the globe, but are later 
replaced by placental fossils. It is tempting to argue (and few
paleontologists have resisted the temptation) that placentals out-
competed marsupials because they were competitively superior. 
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.

>	He then made a curious statement:  "But of course it is also just as 
>big a problem for the evolutionists too, since they can't find any 
>fossils of the Marsupials anywhere else either."

	This is simply a factual error, marsupial fossils are found
outside of Australia.

	All the above info can be found in a single chapter of an
intro to evolution text (in this case Futuyma's).

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"
From: lippard@milori.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Dishonest evolutionists
Keywords: dishonesty evolution proof
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:08:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: milori.6APR199220085422
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <56@devl3.UUCP>, root@devl3.UUCP (Super user) writes...
>To:  Steven Foster
> [From: Wesley Elsberry]
>Your post concerning proof misses the point:  The original poster
>claimed a generic dishonesty among evolutionists.  Low challenged that
>person to prove or retract his statements.  In this case, "proof" would
>not refer to the scientific standard of testing a theory (the original
>and still occassionally encountered usage of "proof" is "test", as in
>photographic proofing-out papers), but rather to the standards used in
>civil law for substantiation of a claim.  The item under discussion is
>not evolution in general, but a claim of dishonesty in particular.
> 
>	You are right Dr. Elsberry.  I did miss the beginning of this
>	exchange.  I did not realize that the original poster was claiming
>	that all evolutionists are dishonest.  I have to agree with you that
>	not all are dishonest; only those who claim that there is some kind
>	of proof (not photographically related) to substantiate their claim.
>	If somebody says "I want to believe in evolution just because", that
>	is fine; and they are not being dishonest as far as I can tell.
>	Mea culpa.

Why do you seem to think that the only two possibilities are believing
in evolution "just because" and believing in evolution because it has
been "proven"?  This is a false dilemma (that's the term for the informal
fallacy, for whoever used the term "false dichotomy" earlier).  The
obvious intermediate position is believing in evolution because it is
supported by the evidence.

>	->  Steven Foster					<-
>	->  LAND MAIL: PO Box 2107; Collegedale, TN  37315	<-
>	->  VOICE: 1-404-238-7111, ext 2695			<-
>	->  UUNET: root@devl3.mckee.COM				<-

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov and the 2nd Law
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:08:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.123115.1776@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes:
>
>      Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are
>      not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten
>      terms is suitable only for kindergartens."
>
>                           Isaac Asimov
>                            1920-1992
>

Does this mean it's ok to teach creationism in school, as long as you do 
it in kindergarten?  And is this in any way related to the 5-year-olds'
well-known fascination with dinosaurs?
:):):)

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
                Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split hairs
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | so well, I bought the  
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | whole argument.
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:33:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: zia.1992Apr12.003333.4593
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM

In article <1992Apr11.133906@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.115009.893@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu
>writes:
>> In article <4658@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>, andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Andrew
>Taylor) writes:
>> > In the discussion of Woolly Mammoth's cold adaption several comparisons
>> > have been made to the African Elephant. Some have called it a tropical
>> > animal. This is misleading. Until recently elephants occupied all of
>Africa,
  [stuff deleted]
>> > Andrew Taylor
>> 
>> I'm not sure where he got his elephants, but don't forget that Hannibal
>> crossed the Alps with them.
>> 
>> Sue
>
>  Also keep in mind that all but two died.
>
>                                -Kurt

Also keep in mind that a number of the soldiers died.
-- 
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)
Xref: sparky talk.origins:4155 sci.bio:1728
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.bio
Subject: big fungus again
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:13:38 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost

My first posting of this got scrambled somehow, here's how it should 
have read.

In this weeks Nature, researchers report finding a single fungal 
organism that spans at least 15 hectares, weights 10,000+ kg and 
is 1500 years old. The fungus was found in a hardwood forest in
northern Michigan. 
	
	That's a big fungus.

REFERENCE
Smith, et. al., 1992, The fungus _Armillaria bulbosa_ is among
the largest and oldest living organisms, Nature 356: 428-431

Chris Colby	email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu
"And will our voices be heard/Or will they break like the wind"
-Spinal Tap
Newsgroups: talk.origins