HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Holden omissions
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:16:31 GMT

In article <41@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> We all know that in going from mice to men, or from ants to mice, these
> ratios go down.

  False.  As I, and others, have pointed out many times, the ratios for insects
are MUCH LOWER than those for other animals.  The Holden Numbers actually go up
as animals get larger.  Don't you remember my post on the VonRoeschlaub number
which proved conclusively that no animal larger than 275 lbs could exist just by
using ants as the base animal instead of humans.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Organization: City University, London
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 12:11:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.154335.4430@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>In article <19920924.141504.179@almaden.ibm.com> mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>>One kind has not changed into another.
>
>What's a "kind"?
>
>>I ask again for observations of macro-evolution happening.
>
>The fossil record (even as assembled by 19th-century
>Creationists, not to mention the much more extensive work
>that has been done since then) clearly shows that different
>forms of life appeared at different times.  Change
>unquestionably occurred; the only question is how.

All it shows is that different forms of life appear in the
fossil record at different _layers_!

As to the interpretation of that, evo's say its because of
evo, but an equally if not more valid interpretation is that
of hydrological sorting in the flood.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden omissions
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:23:50 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep30.081850.9218@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
|Er, Brontosaurus aka apatosaurus was not a brachiosaurid. ...

Quite true.  Unfortunately for Ted, it was an *atypical* diplodocid.
It was the thickest, relatively shortest of the diplodocids, so it is
a piss-poor basis for estimating the weights of *any* other sauropod,
either brachiosaurid or diplodicid (or even cetiosaurid).

Diplodocus was a much more typical diplodocid.  It was was also about half
the weight of Apatosaurus, despite being considerably longer.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:00:42 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>>	Yes, but the probability of evolution is the same as a monkey would 
>>	type the whole Shakespeare. 

>Whereinthehell did you get that figure?  Shakespeare wrote about 1000 pages
>(off the cuff guess).  Each page contains 500 words (2500 characters) for
>2.5 million characters.  Are you really saying that the probability of
>evolution is 1e-350,000 ?????

	Yes.
>Yes but (oh dear) if you had looked carefully at the book you would 
>realize that it *doesn't* take that long for that sentence to occur,
>does it?  And *why* doesn't it?  And why is that reason relevant when 
>discussing evolution?

	He showed it with 60 steps, but I have doubts with his method. 
>Hello?

	Hello !   
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:14:02 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep28.121140.24899@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|
|All it shows is that different forms of life appear in the
|fossil record at different _layers_!
|
|As to the interpretation of that, evo's say its because of
|evo, but an equally if not more valid interpretation is that
|of hydrological sorting in the flood.
|
'Fraid not.  The layering of fossils does not even come *close* to that
expected from hydrological sorting.  Despite frequent claims, the fossil
record is *not* sorted by size. Small fossils occur *throughout* the record,
and fossils of identical size and similar shape are nonetheless found
distinctly seperated into different layers.  In fact the main basis for
the more detailed levels of the stratigaphic column is the layered
distribution of  small fossils, such as foraminifers.  Now how is hydrological
sorting going to sort extremely similar, but nonetheless distinct, forms
of foraminifer into *consistantly* ordered layers such as we observe?
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Darwinism is dead !
Summary: Oh, please.
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 07:34:01 GMT

In article <n0abet@ofa123.fidonet.org> Laurence.Vanhelsuwe@f8.n252.z2.fidonet.org writes:
>Hi All (biologists),
> 
>I've just been reading in a VERY interesting book which attacks Darwin's
>theory of evolution based on natural selection.
> 
>It's written by a molecular biologist and as far as I could glance doesn't
>contain the "G" word...

Most creationist tracts attempting to represent themselves as scientific
explicitly avoid "The 'G' word."

>It comes up with some very convincing arguments.
>For example: there's no evidence WHATSOEVER when analysing DNA sequences that 
>any species is more or less "evolved" or primitive than another one. In other 
>words amphibians are NOT inbetween fish and reptiles for example.

Not surprising, since this has never been the claim of evolutionary biology.
Whoever this "molecular biologist" was was either a liar or has no clue
what evolutionary biology is.  Evolution did not happen like this:

   fish ---------> amphibian --------> reptile

but like this:

    fish   amphibian   reptile
      \       \          /
       \       \        /
        \       \      /
         \       \    /
          \       \  /
           \       \/
            \      Amphibian/reptile common ancestor
             \    /
              \  /
               \/
               Fish/amphibian common ancestor
              /

See?  No one of the three groups is expected to be "more evolved than," or
"in between" the others.
              
>Another argument which he uses is to reject the idea that a RANDOM process
>(mutation of genes) could produce any length of DNA which produces anything as 
>intricate and complex (and working!) as even a simple bacterium...

Again, a misrepresentation of evolution.  EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM.  Please
repeat this several million times, until you understand.

>Any views ?

Pfffffffffffththththttttt.....
 
>(I'll have to write down the title and author next time... 

You should have done so the first time.  You have no credibility until
you give a source.

>I've always said
>that even established scientific thought can always be overturned in time...)

You're right, it can.  But, you're wrong, it hasn't.
 
>Laurence

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
From: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Observations
Summary: Mark Twain on the difference between fact and miracle
Keywords: evidence superstition belief
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:13:11 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation  Sunnyvale California


   livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> 
>  ...   I picked up a book last year which described in some
> detail six cases of spontaneous remission from cancer.
> 
> I found myself thinking: Ah, this is a doctor writing, so she
> calls these spontaneous remissions.   If a TV evangelist were
> talking about the same cases, they would call them miracles.
> 
> So what exactly is the difference?   Is a miracle just a matter
> of who's telling you?   Some proof of the existence of God.

Mark Twain examines the difference between a fact and 
a miracle in one of the essays included in _Letters_From_Earth_.

He motivates the discussion with a passage from the published
journals of Henry Hudson (I think ... this is from memory).

In the quoted passage, Hudson's log recounts that two of the
seamen saw a mermaid, which came close to the ship.  Hudson
himself sets this down without comment, but the editor of
the edition of the journal that Twain was reading comments
parenthetically, "(probably a seal)".

This sets Twain off on a discussion with a fictional "expert"
on the reliability of witnesses, and how to interpret historical
records of this type.  The discussion ends (paraphrased):

Expert:  "So you see, if you regard the mermaid as a _miracle_,
          it's absolutely solid, as well-attested and reliable
          as any miracle in the historical record.  On the other
          hand, if you wish to regard it as _fact_, much more
          evidence is required than the say-so of a couple 
          of ignorant, superstitions seamen.
 
Twain:   "Then difference between a fact and a miracle is ..."

Expert:  "Precisely.  The difference between a fact and a miracle
          is exactly the difference between a seal and a mermaid."

---
Joel Hanes
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:08:02 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Sep29.133717.1602@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
|> Jon Livesey (livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com) wrote:
|> 
|> : While you are at it, explain how you distinguish between a
|> : spontaneous recovery, and "God did it".       I've always 
|> : wondered about that one.
|> 
|> 
|> 	The same way you distinguish between the spontaneous creation
|> of the Universe (the "Big Bang") and "God did it".

First, that's a very bad analogy.   Science produces evidence
for the Big Bang as against other concrete *events*.   It does
does not attempt to to ascribe a cause to this event - modulo 
some speculation, clearly labelled as such.   If you wish, you
can perfectly well have both "Big Bang" *and* "God did it".

|> 	You can't.  That's where faith comes in.

Another bad analogy.   Mr Tun starts by saying that limbs have 
been healed, etc, and comments that this is something "God did".
I'm asking him, even if he has evidence that these *events* have
taken place, how does he support ascribing a cause "God" to them.
Why not some random cause?

|> 	Again, the fountain of Lourdes in France has specific 
|> criteria for what can be considered a "miraculous healing".  I 
|> KNOW they exist, but don't know where to find them.  Whether or 
|> not the healing is truly "miraculous" no doubt depends on the 
|> perception of the individual.

Read what I wrote above.   This is exactly what I am asking
Mr Tun.    I am saying: even if you can produce evidence that
such and such a thing happened, you still have to convince us
that this event is evidence of the existence of God - ie: God
made the event happen - and not simply a spontaneous remission.

This is another example of the ways in which Science and Religion
are *not* symmetric.   There is no Faith involved in listing the
evidence in favour of a Big Bang, and once you start ascribing 
a cause to the Big Bang, you are quickly outside Science.

However, produce a healed crocked leg, and I still want to
know why you think God healed it.   If you don't think God 
healed it, then it's not a particularly interesting leg.

jon.
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Creation Seminar Announcement
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:18:56 GMT

THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT!

	Working on the principle of "Know Thine Enemy":

	As mentioned elsewhere, on October 9 and 10 there will be a
Genesis/Biblical Creation/Hack Science Workshop presented in Rockville,
Maryland at Montrose Baptist Church.  A lot of the usual suspects on the
ICR "10-Most-Wanted" List will be there.

I can provide information to any WashBalt
t.o. regulars who wish to go and confront Gish/Morris/Ham in person.
Wish I could be there!

Oh yeah, any Christians who want to go so you're well grounded in
Creation Science -- don't bother asking.  However, well-minded Christians
who can ferret out the ICR untruths are also welcome to attend. 

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: self-deceptive belief maintenance
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:13:29 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1502@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|In article <1156@tdat.teradata.COM> I wrote:
|>That is correct, in that the only useful distinction to be made is
|>between those who insist onm a supernaturalist explanation for
|>origins, and those who accept the scientific evidence.
|
|By "supernaturalist explanation" are you referring to some kind of
|creation that that cannot be discovered through scientific research?
|That is the interpetation I have after reading the next paragraph.

Yep, that is what I meant.

BTW, I also tend to capitalize "Creationist".


-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cain's wife (was Re: A brief tirade)
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:49:10 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA


In article <1992Sep29.133530.28628@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:

>Amusing conversation (well at least I thought so :)
>
>Nicky (5):  Did the people in the olden days hear the Big Bang?
>
>Me: No, there weren't any people around when the Big Bang happened.
>
>Nicky:  Oh, I guess the dinosuars heard the Big Bang.
>
>Me: No, there weren't any dinosaurs then, either.
>
>Nicky:  Oh.  I guess only God heard the Big Bang.

AMUSING, but perhaps TRUE!

Mark
-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antediluvian flying creatures
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:37:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <20@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote:
> The felt effect of the force of gravity on
> earth was much less in remote times, and only this allowed such giant
> creatures to fly.  No flying creature has since RE-EVOLVED into anything
> like former sizes, and the one or two birds which have retained such
> sizes have forfeited any thought of flight, their wings becoming
> vestigial.

If we want to continue with similar speculative science (I would rather
call it crap science), and if you still maintain that dinosaurs and humans
walked hand-in-hand on Earth, why don't we have wings? You know, if the
gravity was far less in remote times, we would have bodies that are
suitable
for gliding back and forth between trees. Why are we so bulky, evolved
into this ape-style being that climbed in trees long time ago? Did God
do a mistake in his design?

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.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: the unbearable lightness of Antti
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:50:50 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <96924@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|
|Any those questions could have been answered easily by opening a
|population genetics text, looking up the key words in the index
|and doing a little bit of reading.

That's certainly how *I* would have done it.

Please note, that while I could not have answered the questions without
the aid of a book, I *did* recognize them as population biology questions.
[In fact I pointed out, perhaps in a letter, that they looked like they
had been pulled right out of a population biology final exam].

As near as I could tell, Antti didn't even understand what they *meant*!

|As you can see, Antti, the self
|proclaimed biologist of greater stature than Darwin, couldn't even
|manage this rather meager task. I actually worried about getting that
|post slapped back in my face, but Antti's marvelous stupidity saved
|me from net.embarrassment.

Yeah, the double-talk he spouted in response really was rather amusing,
wasn't it?
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A brief Tirade and an addendum
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:37:42 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep24.125153.4329@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
|
|Question number two:  What kind of evidence would you (as a creationist) 
|consider valid evidence for evolution? 
|
|Responses I have gotten:  Bob Bales - Anything that doesn't look designed.
|(This is an answer?)  Various other Creationists - (total silence)

Well, then Bob Bales, you may consider yourself answered.  Go read "The
Panda's Thumb" by Stephen J. Gould - it is just chock full of such things.
Or try Darwin's "Origin of the Species", it also mentions a great many
things that don't look designed, and uses them as major supporting
arguments for his theory of evolution.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:18:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.134258.23953@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>>You seem to be ignoring selection.  Dawkins quite clearly states that
>>his program uses selection, and discusses how this relates to natural
>>selection.  
>
>	He ignored it himself - correctly - in this case: When the life
>	was supposed to evolve there was no selection, just like you mix n 
>	chemicals - no selection.


Aaaaah.  That's a good point.  There wasn't *biological*
evolution before life, but there was *chemical* and *molecular*
evolution.  Apparently you don't know much about the theories on
abiogenesis either?  For a non-technical introduction, read the
first two chapters (especially chapter 2) of _The Selfish Gene_
by Richard Dawkins.  (another book which _Life_ likes to quote
from).

>
>>Here's another example: suppose I want to roll six sixes (with six
>>dice).  How many rolls would I expect to need if
>>     a) I just keep rolling all six until they all come up sixes?
>>     b) If I take out any that come up sixes and just reroll the rest?
>
>>The answer for b is much less than a, because the two situations are
>>quite different.  Similarly (as any biologist should know) evolution
>>is not the same as pure chance; it entails selection.  The selection
>>is much less effective than either Dawkins' analogy or the dice
>>analogy, but it's there all the same: if you ignore it, you're
>>ignoring an essential part of evolutionary theory, and you wouldn't
>>want to do that, would you?
>
>	You are correct with this point, yes. 
>-- 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>
>	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !


-- 
corey@sdf.lonestar.org  214-296-0458   Corey Carroll
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:37:25 GMT
	<1992Sep24.201025.18334@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Sep28.185351.19420@cs.joensuu.fi>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 28 Sep 92 18:53:51 GMT, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) said:

> 	Yes, but the probability of evolution is the same as a monkey would 
> 	type the whole Shakespeare. The probability of one sentence is 
> 	1 / 1+E40, which would lead to probability of 1/1+E12 per year per 
> 	planet. And this was only the first sentence. 

You seem to be ignoring selection.  Dawkins quite clearly states that
his program uses selection, and discusses how this relates to natural
selection.  

Here's another example: suppose I want to roll six sixes (with six
dice).  How many rolls would I expect to need if
     a) I just keep rolling all six until they all come up sixes?
     b) If I take out any that come up sixes and just reroll the rest?

The answer for b is much less than a, because the two situations are
quite different.  Similarly (as any biologist should know) evolution
is not the same as pure chance; it entails selection.  The selection
is much less effective than either Dawkins' analogy or the dice
analogy, but it's there all the same: if you ignore it, you're
ignoring an essential part of evolutionary theory, and you wouldn't
want to do that, would you?

--
Bruce Stephens
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:09:40 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct5.142512.23398@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (Class Guest3) wrote:
> 	Just wanting to keep terminology straight (and I haven't
> read Dawkins).  Is it proper to refer to the development of increasingly
> complex chemical systems as "evolution"?   We could probably break 
> down the reactions into polymerizations, condensations, etc. but I'm
> uncomfortable calling this "evolution", because of the confusion
> it might engender with biological evolution.  There has to be a more precise 
> term, but I can't think of one at this moment.  Anybody?
> 	("Sophistication"?  "Complexation?")

Isnt' this part of the newly appearing theory of complexity (Santa Fe
Institute) that tries to map the mathematical implications of sporadious
changes in the complexity level that suddenly stabilizes into known
structures? I'm sure that even if we could verify this theory there
are people that don't believe the formulas and state that God is involved
in this natural procedure. Sigh.

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.
Newsgroups: talk.origins