HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Evolution and nanotech
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:17:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Aug.31.01.48.26.1992.24252@planchet.rutgers.edu> radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal) writes:
>
>If we are randomly searching for rare, highly-beneficial mutations,
>then it shouldn't matter whether we have sex or not. Once a single
>organism is produced with the good mutation, it's descendents should
>quickly out-compete the others.

Where was the definition of "beneficial mutation" changed to
"competitive advantage"?

One 'beneficial mutation' that springs to mind is wheat. Try
letting that stuff out-compete anything -- it can't seed itself.

["Beneficial mutation" is tied to "competitive advantage" in the 
 theory of evolution, since competitive advantage is the mechanism that
 reinforces beneficial mutations.  
 The aspects that separate wheat from other grasses are only beneficial
 (and advantageous) in the context of a wheat/human symbiotic system.
 The taste and nutritive values of wheat attract farmers in exactly
 the same way that the sweetness of the honeysuckle attracts bees.
 --JoSH]
From: toms@ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: photoribosome
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:50:37 GMT
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center


In article <Sep.2.16.52.01.1992.14146@planchet.rutgers.edu>
keithl@klic.rain.com (Keith Lofstrom) writes:

>What if one bonded a relatively small molecule on the end of a rhodopsin, and
>bolted the whole thing onto the read end of a ribosome?

Excellent idea.  It would definitely be practical to do the control using
photons.  You also point out, correctly, that many photons would be lost and
unusable.  Your solution to just wait for it to be ready is good!  So one would
send one photon until it had high probability of making step 1.  Then switch to
photon 2 for step 2.  Great!  (The more general solution is to use noise
resistant coded transmissions, see J. Theor. Bio. 148(1) p. 121.)

The only problem is that we simply don't know enough to build such a beast
right now.

  Tom Schneider
  National Cancer Institute
  Laboratory of Mathematical Biology
  Frederick, Maryland  21702-1201
  toms@ncifcrf.gov
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Evolution and nanotech
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:48:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


(JoSH says:)
>["Beneficial mutation" is tied to "competitive advantage" in the 
> theory of evolution, since competitive advantage is the mechanism that
> reinforces beneficial mutations. 

We do know now that competitive advantage is not the only form of
evolution. As you point out there are sybiotic relationships that
can change the dice in this throw.

Somewhere I read that things evolve as they must. That
is an important distinction in evolution. There are many non-competitive
mutations that occur in species that are not weeded out because there
is no survival pressure. Color distinctions are often involved in
this sort of thing. Might not nanotech devices have similar problems?

So 'beneficial mutation' doesn't have anything to do with 'competitive
advantage' except in certain circumstances.

[A good way to think of evolution is as a rising water level flooding
 the area behind a dam, filling *all* the available area (viable
 obtions) in the reachable region (the design space).  Sometimes
 the water's edge reaches a saddle point in the terrain and a new
 basin will be filled rathr quickly ("punctuated equilibrium").
 --JoSH]
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Evolution and nanotech
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:35:56 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636

Evolving computer programs have already been written.  The key is to
operate sexual recombination and mutation on the branches of the source
code parse tree, instead of memory locations or source code characters 
or tokens.  In LISP the s-expressions already represent the parse tree,
and every mutation or recombination operation results in a syntactically
legal program.  A variety of programs were evolved towards achieving 
various goals, eg to design boolean multiplexers, to solve ant-and-pheremone 
track problems, etc., starting with some basic pre-programmed atoms 
(subroutines).
I conclude that evolution can be programmed, but also can be easily
designed out of a machine.  It is probable people will purposefully
design evolving machines at some point, just for a neat hack if for
no other reason.

Ref: _Arfificial Life 2_ (2nd Conference on Artificial Life, Santa Fe Institute)


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: ian@inf.ethz.ch (Ian)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Definitions
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:43:28 GMT
Organization: Dept. Biochemistry, University of Bristol, UK

Perhaps any macroscopic device which assembles (or tries to assemble) a 
nano-scale object should be called a macro-assembler.

[perhaps you mean, assemble a macroscopic object?  Actually, it would
 make sense to use "macro-assembler" metaphorically to refer to gadgets
 like the ribosome that build things, not directly from atoms, but
 from "molecular tinkertoys" (the "macros") (in this case the amino
 acids).
 --JoSH]
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Rere:Snowballing tomk
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:32:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Aug.31.23.11.27.1992.29492@planchet.rutgers.edu> shearson!snark!pmetzger@uunet.uu.net (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>You seem to forget another point; even an immature nanotechnology will
>likely radically alter our lifespans.

And how do you arrive at this idea Perry? Aren't you somehow sticking
medical science advances in there with nanotechnological advances?
(Sort of "And a Miracle Occurs" middle part?)

>And for those of us who don't like the idea of being caught dying just
>a few decades away from nanotechnology, there is always cryonics...

What about cryonics?

>Given the fact that you can construct more assemblers with self
>reproduction, why should we be restricted to so few assemblers?

If you can't construct a single self replicating machine right now
how do you presume to invent such a machine. This is one of those
ideas that likes to take root: someday we will have entirely
automated automobile plants. Then the Ludites begin breaking the
computers. :-) This has never worked in the past and now we are
going to have it happen in an entirely new technology. Show me
ANYTHING that could be considered a demonstration of the idea.

>Things have changed a lot since Nylon was designed 50 years ago. Now
>we have computers to help us with our R&D. We also have several
>interesting synergies: faster computers mean faster/better R&D.
>Faster/better R&D means faster computers. Crude assemblers allow us to
>build yet faster computers and yet better assemblers simulated with
>those faster computers.

OK, I'll bite. HOW will better assemblers make faster and better
computers? You are again simply making an immense leap of faith.
Compared to this Joan of Arc was a piker.

You can't fight radical pessimism with rabid optimism. Try an
look at the historical perspective. What science _ever_ delivered
a substantial fraction of the grandiose dreams lent to it?

Do you notice the world as being all that utopian?

I'm trying to goad people into coming up with practical _now_
ideas. Not dreams about what nanotech could conceivably become.
No one can predict the future with certainty.
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Evolution and nanotech
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:55:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Sep.8.16.35.25.1992.1306@planchet.rutgers.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>
> Umm... maybe it's just me, but I think that the developments
>you're proposing are indistinguishable from nanotechnology.
>("Nanotechnology"="technology on the nanometer scale," unless
>I missed something...)
> If it walks like a technolgy able to manipulate materials on
>the molecular level, and quacks like a technology able to
>manipulate materials on a molecular level, etc.

Ray, someone here has already posted a quote from Drexler (I believe)
who stated to a congressional committee that nanotech was _not_
biotechnology, that it didn't involved merely things at a small
scale, but were rather distinctly machines. Or at least that was the
way I interpreted those statements.

If you redefine the science to be anything small you now _have_
nanotechnology in the guise of chemistry, biotechnology and other
sciences that are completely operational. So why talk of nanomachines
then instead of organisms?

[Why talk of cars and trucks and airplanes and ships and railroads
 when we already have horsecarts and dogsleds?  They're all just
 forms of transportation...  The analogy is quite close.
 --JoSH]
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: raicu@netcom.com (Eugen Raicu)
Subject: Re: Let's test the sevens-in-Bible phenomenon!
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 13:51:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Kalter@unh.edu writes:
: Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.  The skeptics are in
: business to investicate and test any testable claims of the extraordinary.
: The prospect that off-the-shelf original-language books of the Bible
: produce sevens when run through an objective formula has got to be
: THE MOST TESTABLE CLAIM ever to come down the pike.  It do, or it don't.
: Cynicism aside, anyone who knows that there is hard evidence on an issue,
: has not examined it, knows that another has made an observation, yet
: says "I don't need to see for myself; they're just WRONG!" does not
: truly adhere to the skeptic's philosophy.  A skeptic would insist on a
: second opinion.  BRING IN THE EVIDENCE. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

As I have said in a previous article, if this constitutes hard evidence,
there is even more such "hard" evidence for the fact that the Earth has
been visited by extraterestrials.
-- 
Eugen Raicu
raicu@netcom.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15955 talk.origins:10894
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:57:55 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Sep2.132528.6672@bony1.bony.com> billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:
>In article <9qhn+lf.alc@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:

>>3. Contact the Flat Earth Society (I don't have the address handy, but
>>   I posted it a while ago).  They will provide you with materials and
>>   show you how to fight the evil humanistic belief that the earth is
>>   round with true evidence and Biblical information that shows otherwise.

>Funny, my Bible says "He compasseth the day from the night" indicating
>that the earth is a sphere (round).

	Tell that to Wilbur Glenn Voliva, Charles Johnson, or some
other Bible-thumping flat-earther. :-)

	And where in the Bible is this? That's so I can compare to
some modern-English translation (let's not forget the the original
texts were _not_ in King James English :-).
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: toby@cs.man.ac.uk (Toby Howard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: J. Witnesses
Date: 13 Sep 92 12:05:45 GMT
	<1992Sep9.062322.3982@desire.wright.edu> <5357@tuegate.tue.nl>
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl's message of 10 Sep 92 16:09:47 GMT

When the J. Witnesses or any other religious merchant comes round I listen
politely for about 2 ns, then offer to swap them some of THEIR literature
for some of MINE, and give them a copy of The Skeptic, a UK skeptical
magazine I co-edit. It's great to see their reactions to this! (Then I
REALLY confuse them by saying that The Skeptic has no position at all on
personal religion, just claimed 'paranormal' occurrences).

Toby

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Howard    Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
Lecturer               Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom
                                                   Tel: +44 61-275-6274
toby@cs.man.ac.uk                                  Fax: +44 61-275-6236
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 22:52:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.160139@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  Sorry, it was part of the question that he _did_ know the truth.  It may be
>the results of experiments not released into public knowledge, but he knows the
>truth.

Oh, in that case, I wouldn't bother asking to be released.... and if you think
that's unrealistic, you're right.  You're asking me to assume (unrealistically)
that I don't doubt the fanatic's competence; my unrealistic reaction follows
from this unrealistic assumption.

To point out that a person who accepts something may have doubts if forced to
take a stand by a fanatic, says little about their attitude towards truth, but
a lot about their attitude towards fanatics.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Crop circles: natural or human-made?
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:54:07 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep3.200508.8383@lonex.rl.af.mil> jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims) writes:
]>
]>I also have seen lots of circular plantings. They look very different.
]>
]Could they have been circular irrigation systems?  
No. They were too small; the circular areas were gaps in the normal growth
(the inverse of what circular irrig would do).


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16251 talk.origins:11171
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:17:21 GMT

In article <13732.2aae8b9e@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, hjort@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>I just saw a little blurb on the news just now. I didn't give
>any details, but the story was apparently there was this museum
>display featuring "live" dinosaurs that were mechanically animated
>displays. Apparently some people thought they were going to see
>living dinosaurs, and are demanding thier money back.
>
>I thought it was worth a chuckle, but it also reflects sadly on
>America's education system.
>
>I just thought you might want to know.

Hey, given the way biotechnology's been advancing the last few years, the
prospect of live dinosaurs isn't all THAT unbelievable. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Missing verbs (was: bi
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:13:57 GMT

Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com
 
In article <LEET.92Sep11143054@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
wrote as follows:
 
>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:16:05 GMT, leet@ims.com
>>>>>> (Grammar-challenged) said:
> 
> Lee> "Jack naively espoused creationist beliefs to Jim ... Lippard"
> Lee> :-)
> Lee> (I know, I know, the tense doesn't fit, but it was too good to
> Lee> pass up.)
> 
> And as will no doubt be pointed out at length, this is not "tense" but
> "voice" or somesuch.  Well, I don't know about you-all, but the
> prospect of being unprepared for Lippard's (or any other skeptic's)
> response to creationism makes *me* tense!  (Hey, Chapman, remember the
> first time ...?)
 
Lest it be forgotten, Jim is very likely the only sci.skeptic poster 
with his VERY OWN entry in _High Weirdness by Mail_.  I quote:
 
"A newer publication is _Fundamentalism Is Nonsense (Some Problems with 
Christian Fundamentalism, Christianity, and Theism in General)_, one of
the most thoroughly researched, readable compendiums I've seen for 
totally demolishing the supposed infallibility of the Bible.  But...  
Gee, what a spoilsport!  And couldn't he have taken on something a 
little more _challenging_?  $2 for most people, $1 for members of the 
SubGenius Church.  (Requires proof, such as a xerox of your ordainment
card.)...
 
Best Regards,
Rick M.

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16118 alt.conspiracy:10510 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3186 talk.rumors:987
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.rumors
Subject: Re: Kudos to My Many Fans
Date: 9 Sep 92 01:19:47 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1XX666XX@defect.kgb.su> lho@defect.kgb.su (Lee Harvey Oswald) writes:
>Comrades, my only two dreams in life were to be a spy, or an assassin,
>and to get laid. I have achieved my dreams but I am still disgruntled.
>Lately, I've become quite spectacularly annoyed at the drop-off in net
>traffic from my supporters and admirers. I'm beginning to think that
>everyone's name has finally been added to everyone else's KILL file.
>And how would you like to be added to my KILL file, fellow patriot?
>
>                        -- Alek Hidell
>
>P.S. Marina, you ignorant slut! You made love to The Second Oswald and never
>complained.


Elvis, is that you?
From: Greg_Goss@mindlink.bc.ca (Greg Goss)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:03:01 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Mathemagician writes:
> 
> Since when is left-handedness "not good"?  Yes, I know you said
> "generally," but left-handedness tops your list.
> 


In a mechanized society, left-handed people tend to die earlier.  Equipment is
generally not designed for them, and as designs get more intricate, things get
more awkward.

If someone had a choice, I think it would make sense to choose
right-handedness.  This makes left-handedness "not good".

Stick shift cars are on the wrong side.  Our written language is designed to
smear handwritten text written by a leftie.   Keyboard ENTER keys, and cursor
and numeric keypads are right-handed.  Control panels on MOST equipment (TV's
zapper ovens, cars are all right-handed.

Are you saying that our society gives no advantages to right-handed people?

.../greg


--
"say NO to four-line sigs"     greg_goss@mindlink.bc.ca
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Laplace' Quote
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:13:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.141756.3603@asbt01.gedlab.allied.com> b14817@asbt01.gedlab.allied.com (JON W. PARKER) writes:
>>>The stability of the solar system *is* an unsolved problem.  
>> 	Perhaps not a completely solved one, but some work _has_ been
>> done in that direction via long-time simulations. The result: the
>> Solar System is weakly chaotic. This does not mean that the planets
>> simply bounce around, Velikovsky-style, but it does mean that the
>> planets' orbit parameters are chaotic _within definite boundaries_.
>> The time scale of this chaos is significant: a couple of million years
>> or so if memory serves me correctly, much too long for Velikovskian
>> catastrophes in historical times.
>Your model assumes no outside source of energy.  Velikovski's assumes an
>outside source of energy, ie a cometary body.  

Velikovsky assumes the cometary body comes from Jupiter.  For the solar system,
this is not an outside source of energy.  Furthermore, an outside source of
energy makes more things possible, but doesn't make _everything_ possible.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Logic and God
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 08:34:03 +1000

Wednesday September 02 1992, Carl J Lydick writes to All:

CJL> Several species of insects, some sort of flower (a full description of
CJL> this one was recently posted to sci.skeptic), some Australian mammal
CJL> (wallabee?), a population of which that was brought to Hawaii by
CJL> humans is no longer able to interbreed with the Australian species.

Wallaby. I find this hard to believe, because the wallabies can have been
separated for only a few dozens or perhaps a hundred generations while dingos
(Australian wild dogs) which were separated for far longer breed very well with
imported dogs. So do Australian Aborigines and everyone else, for that matter.
Not with dogs, other people. You see what I'm saying :-)

I'm not saying that it's impossible, but it sounds odd to me. A later poster
said that they could eat some plants which were poisonous to their Australian
brethren. Perhaps this could provide evolutionary pressure, but the possible
time period (less than 200 years) means that the selection process would have to
be so fast as to kill most of them off... perhaps all of them.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic