is it time yet for sci.bio.evolution?

Chris Colby colby at bu.bu.edu
Thu Sep 30 16:55:28 EST 1993

[t.o. = talk.origins]

Would anyone be interested in a (minimally) moderated sci.bio.evolution
board? T.o. is chock full of highly irrelevant threads these days and
it is hard to find the signal amidst all the noise.
T.o. and sci.bio both routinely have discussions of evolutionary
biology. I think the traffic could sustain a board devoted solely
to biological aspects of evolution. In fact, I suspect it could
draw about 15-20 posts a day. T.o. is logging in at 100+ posts
a day it seems. I don't know what the evolution:creation-evolution:
totally irrelevant ratio is (Any computer whiz out there want to
give us a quick estimate?) but, despite the high noise factor, some
discussions flourish (for ex. the recent abiogenesis brouhaha between 
Andy and Deaddog). 

It would be nice to have it moderated solely on the basis of 
relevance. Creationist postings would be returned with a pointer
to talk.origins. Likewise, completely irrelevant postings could
simply be rejected. Before any creationists starts whining about
censorship, I would stress that t.o. is (and should remain) un-
moderated so nobody's ideas would be suppressed. They would simply
be channeled away from an inappropriate forum. 

I think a sci.bio.evolution forum could reduce traffic on t.o. 
(and sci.bio) and help people who are interested in evolutionary
discussions but are turned off by the voluminous amount of
crap on t.o. It also may draw some readers of the bionet groups
and bring out questions from people who read those groups, but
may feel intimidated because of the technical nature of the

So, is this a good idea? 

I've crossposted to this to talk.origins, sci.bio and a bionet
group. I've set follow-ups to talk.origins, but please check your
headers when responding to reduce crossposting.

Chris Colby
email:colby at biology.bu.edu

More information about the Mol-evol mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net