HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
Subject: Re: stars & carbon
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:31:45 GMT
Reply-To: cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <buell.711752007@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu>, 
buell@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Jim Buell) writes:
|>
|> There are two types of neutron capture reactions, the slow process and
|> the rapid process. The slow process [...] accounts
|> for the elements up through about atomic number 116 or so.
|> The rapid process [...] accounts for elements above 116 or so.

Did you mean "atomic weight" (= "mass number") there? Nuclei with an
"atomic number" (Z, number of protons) greater than 116 woudn't remain
around for long, even if formed!

Chris Thompson
JANET:    cet1@uk.ac.cam.phx
Internet: cet1@phx.cam.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bgarwood@sngldsh.cv.nrao.edu (Bob Garwood)
Subject: Re: Was: Thermodynamics FAQ, Now: Pardon me while I rant.
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
	<henley.920724101706@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu>
	<1992Jul25.194857.19939@techbook.com>
	<henley.920728115015@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:19:49 GMT

In article <henley.920728115015@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:

> Sorry to rehash the same post, but *I AM MAD*. 

>In article <1992Jul25.194857.19939@techbook.com> mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb) writes:
>>
>>Yes I did. Did you even write it? Your special definition of closed
>>is not to be found in any reference on thermo I have consulted. I

>Are these sources mystical, or are you pulling a flim flam?
>It's real easy to prove you are not, GIVE THE REFERENCES.

>Come on some of you people who call yourselves scientists.  Make a stand.
>Either tell these poor fools that they are wrong, or tell me why all the
>sources that I have are wrong.  If you think this is making me mad, you
>are absolutely right.  I'll shut up for a few days, and see if you can
>come to grips with reality on your own.

>My sources so far:

>_Physical_Chemistry_, Berry Rice and Ross, John Wiley & Sons
>_Basic_Physical_Chemistry_, Moore, Prentice Hall
>_Fundamentals_of_Engineering_Thermodynamics_, Howell and Buckius, McGraw Hill
>_Introduction_to_Chemical_Engineering_Thermodynamics_, Smith and van Ness,
>   McGraw Hill
>_Introduction_to_Engineering_Thermodynamics_, Silver and Nydahl, West Pub.

>James P. Henley Jr.
>Chemical Engineering Dept
>Auburn University

---

_Statistical and Thermal Physics_, Reif, McGraw-Hill

    While there is repeated use of the term "isolated system" which is
clearly defined as a system that can-not exchange energy with its
surroudings, I can find no use of the term "closed system".   Rather, 
explanations and chapters typically start off dealing with "isolated"
systems and then procede to examine the cases of the system not
being in isolation.  However, this is only after about 20 minutes of
scanning the book (there is no index entry for isolated, closed, or system)
so I may have missed something, its clear, though, that "closed" isn't
an important concept in this book.

   Furthermore, in the summary of the thermodynamic laws, "isolated 
system" is used several times as an example to be contrasted with
"not isolated".

   I personally think that throwing the term "closed system" as meaning
unable to exchange matter with its surrounding but free to exchange
other forms of energy into a discussion on the basics of
thermodynamics is unnecessary and will most likely lead to confusion (as it
clearly has) on the difference between isolated (which clearly is
an important case) and closed (which is mearly a specific subset of
non-isolated).

Bob Garwood
National Radio Astronomy Observatory
--
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:56:21 GMT

adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:

>In article <BrsMCD.8rp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:

>>On the other hand , if A&E are just a figleaf of our illustration, and
>>humans originated from herds of apemen, then it is the natural order of
>>things to be polygamous and copulate with anything in heat.

[explanations for monogamy in evo deleted]

>I don't know what the currently-accepted explanation is for human
>monogamy, but I would suspect it is some combination of 1 and 2

I hate to muddy the waters here, but I don't think
humans are strictly monogamous.  Actually I've heard that
polygamous cultures greatly outnumber the monogamous ones.

That's not to say one way is more "natural" than the other, although
it does point in that  direction.

What is important to keep in mind is that humans are born practically
a blank slate.  Most other animals are born with a host of _instinctual_
behavior patterns, but humans acquire most of their behaviors
through *learning*.  This also ties in with the thread karl pfaff had
advanced.  It is (almost) meaningless to try to look to nature for
any "natural" behavior for man.  If such a pattern of behaviors were
to exist, it would be best to search across cultures for similiarities.


>* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *

--
 Michael James       mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 

      "Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical
       mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand.  Paul Ehrenfest, carrying
       on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study
       statistical mechanics."  
                                  -David L. Goodman "States of Matter"
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Guiness on the tyrannosaur
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:49:50 GMT
Organization: HTE



Every now and then you learn something new.  I've always heard a figure
of something like 7 - 8 tons as max for a tyrannosaur.  The 91 edition
of Guiness' Book of World Records, page 108, claims that the 7 - 8 ton
individuals might actually have been juveniles, and that partial skulls
have been found which indicate a length of 44', and a weight of more than
13 tons.

That is a biped with a Holden number which is over the limit (around 30).

If you should ever be standing around a time machine, and have some moron
ask you your preference between bringing back the 44' trex or one of the 6'
carnosaurs, go for the 44-footer.  You'd be in no danger that way;  he'd
collapse in a heap under our gravity.  The 6' carnosaur would probably
kill you.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: not understanding evolution
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:35:04 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <emc.711987509@data> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>In <91431@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>>	Group selection can only occur under very restricted
>>conditions.

>This seems to be an oversimplification.  Social groups are known
>among higher primates, as well as conflict between groups.

	This is irrelevant. The question is whether natural
selection(*) is operating at the level of the group, not if groups
exist. In order for selection to act at a level, there must be
a fitness(**) component at that level that is an emergent property
of the lower levels. And, of course, there has to be heritable
variation in this fitness component between entities at that
level.

(*) Natural selection is differential reproductive success of
genotypes

(**) Fitness is the contribution to the next generations gene pool
a genotype will (on average) make. If fitness differences exist between 
genotypes in a gene pool, differential reproductive success (selection) 
occurs. If selection operates, the gene pool (usually) changes -- i.e.
evolution occurs. (Although selection can sometimes keep allele freqs
stable -- like with overdominant selection -- it always causes allele
frequency differences between age classes in a population if it is
operating. See Endler, 1986, "Natural Selection in the Wild", Prince-
ton University Press, Princeton NJ.)

	Now, there are plenty of phenomena that could probably
be called emergent properties in biological populations, the question
is, are they group level fitness components? In most cases, the answer
is no.

>Altruistic
>behaviour on the group level (rather than on the universal level) would
>benefit the individual as his group would remain coherent and better
>able to win the conflict, and by ensuring that he/she would remain
>part of "the group", i.e. not be rejected by others because of the
>selfish traits. 

	You need to think a little more carefully here; part of your
sentence reads "Altruistic behavior...would benefit the individual..."
In others words, the individual is behaving selfishly. Just because
a behavior benefits others doesn't make it altruistic. "Altruistic",
in evolutionary biology, means behaving in order to maximize anothers 
fitness. "Selfish" means behaving in order to maximize ones own fitness.
Maximizing your own fitness usually the requires some mutually bene-
ficial interactions with other organisms -- your mate(s) being one
obvious example.

	P.S. don't take the anthropomorphic aspects of the above 
statements literally.

>Eli Chiprout

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: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Biogenesis in the warm seafloor spring -- Why?
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:07:08 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <9207271557.AA03120@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@NEPTUNE.GSFC.NASA.GOV (James G. Acker) writes:
|
|	4.  Available carbon sources are carbon dioxide (CO2) and 
|methane (CH4).  CO2 is both atmospheric and dissolved in seawater.
|CH4 is atmospheric (limited solubility in seawater, I believe).
|
|	5.  (WHERE WE SHOULD BE NOW!!)  Formation of more complex
|molecules.  Atmospheric electrical discharge allows formation of:
|ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, urea?, other amino acids.  Also short-
|chain alkanes (ethane, propane -- how many carbon atoms?)
|	NEED HELP HERE!  What other precursors are formed in the
|atmospheric process?

A great many.  Including various sugars, and the purines and pyrimadines
(the building blocks of nucleic acids).  Also, long chain alkanes (tars),
and just about any other metastable hydrocarbon compund.

|	And, what can be formed from available dissolved forms in
|seawater in the warm spring?  More ammonia, more sulfur compounds?
|
|	Note:  at some point we'll have to get into specific 
|reaction mechanisms to form more complex molecules (I have my 
|organic chem text handy).
|
|	Amino acid generic form:  H2NCH-R-COOH
|	"Simplest":  H2N-CHCOOH  (glycine)
|
|	Seems to me that in order to form carboxylic and amino acids
|from simpler precursors, we need oxygen from somewhere.  Where do 
|we get it from?  I.e. was enough present in the primordial atmosphere
|or did it come from somewhere else?
|
No free oxygen is needed, there is plenty in H20 and CO2.
In fact one of the interesting points about most 'organic' compounds
is that they have the same raw formula as hydrated carbon - that is CH20,
they differ mainly in how this is arranged, or in losing some part of
this base.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Eukaryotes w/o mitochondria (was Re: The evolution of sexes)
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:25:03 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul28.230849.16222@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> jlogsdon@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (John Logsdon) writes:
|
|First of all there are LOTS of eukaryotes (in addition to _Pelomyxa_)
|that do not have organelles,that is chloroplasts(cp) and/or mitochondria(mt).
|...
| Since mt arose
|prior to the endosymbiosis of cps, mts are the only organelle really in issue
|here. (But see Palmer, Current Biology, 1992, v2: pp 318- 320 for evidence 
|that cps may have arisen deeper in eukaryotic evolution than once thought). 

Well, you seem to have more up-to-date knowledge in this area than I do.
I am having enough trouble staying up to date in paleontology, so I have
not been following protistology since Dr. Eugene Bovee retired.

I'm not to surprised about evidence for early origin of cps, since I know
they have originated at least 4 distinct times.

I thought I had heard of someone finding DNA in ciliary basal bodies.
Has this been refuted?  (Mind, I never did like Margulis' idea of
spirochetes as pre-cilia, but this does not mean that some other,
otherwise unknown, group of prokaryotes might not be the source of cilia).

|More on the issue of euks w/o mts: Tom Cavalier-Smith wrote a nice "News and
|Views" article a few years back (Nature, 1987, v326:332-333) in which he
|recognizes at least FOUR major groups of eukaryotic protists w/o mts. 
|Archamoebae (to which _Pelomyxa_ belong), Metamonada (which includes the 
|diplomonad _Giardia_), Microsporidia (includes _Vairimorpha_), and Parabasalia
|(ie:_Trichomonas_).

An impressive list.  The diplomonad and the parabasalian surprize me.
Or are the diplomonads considered to be derived from parabasalians?
Or is it only Giardia amoung the diplomonads that lacks mts?

|These Phyla (at least the last three, for which there are
|data) branch off of the main eukaryotic line of descent very early - BELOW 
|organisms known to have mitochondria (ie:trypanosomes). This is
|based on ribosomal RNA (and in some cases, protein) sequences. This led Cav.-
|Smith to state "..some of these protozoa are living relics of the earliest 
|phase of eukaryote cell evolution and diverged from our own anscestors before 
|the symbiotic origin of mitochondria (ref above)." The current data also 
|support this contention.

This certainly sounds reasonable to me.  If indeed the rRNA and protein
sequences support the early branching, I would consider the matter just
about settled.

|Is there any evidence for sex in these primitively mt- organisms?

I have never heard of sex in Pelomyxa.
I am not sure about microsporids, since they are so different from
the Sporozoa proper (which do have sex).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 5'th Category of evidence / perceived gravity and continental drift
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:19:38 GMT
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany

In article <2827@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.001846.3411@csis.dit.csiro.au>, prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb) writes:

>>Lynn Rose's paper in Aeon is a joke. I will post a thorough debunking
>>of it if there is any call for it from the bemused observers of your antics.
>>Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
>
>That's like Mortimer Snerd claiming to be capable of debunking Einstein.
>The fact you could say something like that and use the word joke in the same
>breath is astonishing.

I don't know who Mortimer Snerd is, but I guess he must be a super-genius,
considering Einstein, Rose, and the average t.o poster and applying a rule of
three...

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Do you ask a Napoleon why it has to be Moscow, of all places?  Do you ask a
Mondrian why one has to paint only in the rectangularly framed primary colours
Red, Blue, and Yellow?  Ah, how all questions are ruined in view of a persuas-
ively recited system of madness! And is there a mortar keeping those systems
together firmer than real or supposed enemies?  -  Robert Gernhardt
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Biogenesis (+ an invitation to C. Menem)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:08:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.135645.22992@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, mark@austin.ibm.com
(Mark Einkauf) writes:
[a great deal of stuff deleted]
>   The fact that biogenesis cannot occur  "naturally" is  a scientific fact,
>   and also,   I think,   self-evident.  It   is silly   to think   that the
>   complexity of our bodies  is the  result of  random forces.

  Just so you know: as soon as I read a sentence such as above I am led to the
belief you have not read all that much in this group, and have little to no
understanding of Evolution (or biogenesis).  That I even quickly scaned the rest
of the posting is a suprise.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************
From: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:58:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.154449@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren  
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>   BTW, isn't Einstein equation E**2=(m*p)**4+(m*c**2)**2?  When  
calculating
> energy you have to take momentum into account too.
> 


No.  The equation is E^2=p^2+M(rest)^2*c^4.  Your momentum term has mass  
to the forth power, which gives the wrong units for E^2.
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:09:47 GMT
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center

In <1992Jul23.115606.202088@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

>As a born-again Christian, I subscribe to the theory of a young earth
> (6000 to 10000 years old).

>Does anyone have scientific evidence to support this?
>(Stuff on dating methods, dynamic vs. atomic time, etc.)
>Please e-mail or post.

A *lot* of people in this group have been asking this exact question
for years.  It seems the answer is "No", there is no scientific
evidence to support a young earth; at least I've never seen any that
was credible (as opposed to hilarious or outright lies).  There's lots
showing the earth is much older (4.5 billion years).

>Thanks in advance,
>Anthony Faull.
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Giraffes and HN
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:44:18 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <BruKtp.InH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James) writes:
>Has anyone looked at the HN for giraffes.
>I just read an article that talked about the strength
>of the legs of rhinos ( it was New Scientist, I think)
>and the author brought up giraffes as an example of a large
>animal with thin legs.  What would happen if you applied HTE's
>equation to the giraffe?  Their weight is about 2500 lbs
>typically, and their  legs have a very small cross-section.

Giraffes are an exception.  The hair on the underside of their bodies
is densely matted.  This gives them a lowered "felt" effect of gravity.

:-)

-- 
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: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Noah's ark and stupid Christians, REPRISE.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:24:52 GMT

   We had a thread on Noah's ark last year with the rather incindiary
title echoed in this article.  Dozens of independent, self consistant 
refutations of the-ark-myth-as-literal-truth were produced.  I wish
I had saved the refrigerator toting heavilly armored phytoplankton
post.  Oh well.

   I in no way wish to imply that Christians are stupid; my implication 
is that believing Noah's ark sailed requires deep stupidity or blind faith,
which in this case is enjoyed by a few Christians, as the Noah story is a 
Christian myth.

In article <henley.920723114404@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu>, henley@eng.auburn.edu
(James Paul Henley) writes:
> OK, the flood story according to Henley:
> 
> Act 1, scene 1:
> 
>     God told Noah to gather two of every land animal and bird and bring them
>     to the ark.
> 
> Act 1, scene 2:
> 
>     Noah did what God said.
> 
> Curtain closes on act 1.
> 
> Act 2, scene 1:
> 
>     God told Noah to board the ark, and take with him his family and seven
>     [pairs]* of each clean (edible) animal and bird.
> 
> * according to the _NIV_ notes, there are two possible translations:
>   "seven of each" or "seven pairs of each"
> 
> Act 2, scene 2:
> 
>     And Noah did what God said.
> 
> Now why do you suppose God told him to take seven [pairs] of every clean 
> animal and bird with him?  
> 
> Uh.....I wonder what would happen to cows if there were only two, and
> Noah and his family ate one after the flood?

   I wonder what would happen if almost all current spiecies has ancestry
composed of a single pair of organisms that fit on a single boat a few thousand
years ago.  Let's see.  They would display a vastly higher level of genetic
homology than is observed.  So...   ...it doesn't matter what the Bible says or
how you interpret it, the Ark story is a myth and nothing more.  *Yawn*
Crap can be entertaining, I used to watch the A-team, but old Crap, well,
that's another story.

> Not only is my version consistent, it is almost exactly what the account
> says, and it is perfectly logical!

   Its also dead wrong based on the evidence unless you are talking about what
happened in a work of fiction.  Logic is a dangerous tool.  Keep it dry, 
hold it high, use it well, to ends not fell.

> James P. Henley Jr.
> Chemical Engineering Dept.
> Auburn University

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: blah, blah, blah (was: Re: Blah Blah)
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:13:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.192240.164705@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>[stuff about driving forces and thermodynamics in responce to a post about
>natural selection deleted]
>
>What the heck does thermo and such concepts as _useful_ work have to do with
>natural selection and evolution?!  I don't see how you can make the
>connection since they are based on completely different fundamentals.

Woah there Nellie!  Are you saying that biological processes *DO NOT* 
have to abide by the laws of Thermodynamics?

Either they do, or they don't.  If they do, then those laws should be able
to predict things in biological processes, including Natural Selection
and Evolution.  If they don't, well...
>
>|======================================================================|
>| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
>| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
>| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             complement."  -Voltaire        |

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University

Newsgroups: talk.origins