HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Antti dodges reality (take two)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:17:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.181540.5984@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>  How does this cause a problem for evolution?  Think about it, genes don't
>>select the lead bird, right?  So even if the lead birds suffer higher
mortality,
> 	Wrong, but partly yes - genotype is not as important as fenotype in 
> 	this point (and many others).

  So the birds are chosen by what?  Either it is genetic or not.  If it is not
genetic then the above is accurate.  If it is genetic, then the argument I
presented right after the above clause holds.  I notice you have no comment on
that.

  By the way, I talked with a friend of mine, a birding expert.  He said he has
never heard of such a species and finds it "highly unlikely if not impossible". 
He pojnted out further that birds that fly in formation have a number of
behavior patterns across all species.  One which he harped on for quite a while
was that if the lead bird tries to land, and the area turns out to be unsafe (ie
hunters, or predators, etc.) the lead bird is immediately relegated to the back
and a new lead bird is chosen.

  He also would like you to explain what happens to the formation when the lead
bird is shot by hunters in these species that don't switch off lead birds.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:48:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.185351.19420@cs.joensuu.fi> 
  asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>
>>This is relevant??????  Fergit apes, just assume you pick letters at
>>random.
>
>	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 ?????

>	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. 

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?

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

Hello?

C Frog
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden omissions
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:18:50 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <717658769@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:

>> The seismosaur turns out to be a two-for-one, double-sized brontosaur,
>> and that says that you multiply the weight figure (35 tons) by eight.

>This is incorrect.  Ted has been corrected on this point many times. 
>The seismosaur was a diplodicid sauropod.  The brontosaur was a
>brachiodaurid sauropod.  Thus, the seismosaur was a 1.6-for-one
>diplodocus, NOT a double-sized brontosaur.  The Diplodocus was 87 ft
>long, the seisomosaur was 140 ft long.  Weight estimates for Diplodocus
>range from 7 to 20 tons, giving estimates for seismosaur of 30 to 84
>tons (60,000 to 168,000 lbs), making Ted's "estimate" of 560,000 lbs off
>by at least three times. 

Er, Brontosaurus aka apatosaurus was not a brachiosaurid.  Brachiosaurids
have taller front legs, carry the majority of their weight on their front
legs, and have an upward curve in their neck vertebrae for vertical neck
posture.  Diplodicids have larger hind legs, carry the majority of their
weight on their rear legs, have a more pronounced back arch, have a down
ward swoop at the beginning of the neck, and characterist vertebral spines.
Bronty was a diplodicid, but not as gracile [if one can use such a term
with sauropods] as diplodocus.

None-the-less Ted's numbers are off base [how surprising].  Seismosaur
did not have a torso length twice as long as brontosaurus; the neck and
tail were disproportionately long.  Also the legs were relatively stubby.
Ergo a factor of eight is much too large.  I have seen estimates of 100
tons -- not nearly as much as Ted's 280 tons, but quite impressive.

-----

Outside of this particular nit, Wayne's posting is quite impressive.
Actually, Ted's postings are also impressive, albeit in a somewhat
different fashion.
-- 
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.
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antediluvian flying creatures
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:14:20 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

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.

Why was the "felt effect" of force of gravity on earth much less in
remote times, or why is the "felt effect" of gravity much greater now?

Mark
-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
From: fritz@triguy.East.Sun.COM (Steve Fritzinger - SE Sun Washington,DC.)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Words to Think by
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:12:48 GMT
Reply-To: fritz@triguy.East.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: triguy.east.sun.com

Last night I started James Burke's _The Day The Universe Changed_.
The first chapter describes the evolution of natural philosophy
from the fall of Rome to the rediscovery (in Christian Europe)
of Greek thought. 

One of the people discribed was the 12th century Breton philosopher,
Pierre Abelard, who laid down four basic rules for argument and
investigation:

1.  Use systematic doubt and question everything.

2.  Learn the difference between statements of rational
    proof and those merely of persuasion.

3.  Be precise in use of words, and expect presision
    from others.

4.  Watch for error, even in Holy Scripture.

These four statements beautifully describe why it is
so frustrating to debate with certain factions in
this group.  Amazing that after 800 years some people
haven't yet grasped these simple ideas.

It's interesting to note that Roger Bacon and
Theodoric of Freiburg took Abelard's four statements
and developed the first recognizable scientific
investigations.  Bacon was later imprisoned for
these heresy.


Steve Fritzinger   --  steve.fritzinger@East.Sun.COM
The First Rule of Holes:
When you're in one, stop digging.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: thanks for the refs, Antti
Date: 4 Oct 92 01:39:47 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Oct2.121428.16289@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>>PS Got those "wedge leading birds suffer higher mortality" references
>>dug up yet? It's only been weeks since you've made the claim.
>
>	Look Tarttu P|llimajandus~likooli archives, 1988 or before. Also 
>	the zool. mus. of Leningrad can give you information. Also 
>	"Linki ptitsi vorybenniij v severo-zapade SSSR" by Leningrad 
>	University can give you some information, 

Great, next time I'm in Leningrad I'll look those up 8-/

O.K., lets accept for a moment that this has been demonstrated even 
though you claim "Never it's said straight" [sic] in your post.
What does this have to do with evolution?

>	Also you can get good photos of migratory wedges and do your own 
>	decisions. 

Can I recall times I have seen the wedge shift in flight? Can I 
trust some of my graduate student buddies who are birders (and
have very long life lists) when they say they have seen the same
thing? (BTW, how am I going to assess mortality risk of the lead
bird from a photo?)

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

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: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Define For Us, Please
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Sep 21 1992
Date: 26 Sep 92  17:20:28

Tag: Ken Mann (mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM (Ken Mann))
 
[stuff]
 
KM> "What is there to explain? Creations accept that what you
KM> term as micro-evolution occurs. [P] What Creationists don't
KM> accept is the extrapolation that since micro-evolution has
KM> (and does) occurred, then certainly macro-evolution must have
KM> occurred. [P] The first is observed and proven. The second is
KM> speculated. [P] Again, Creations do not accept that macro-evolution
KM> has occurred. People are still people. Dogs are still dogs.
KM> Fish are still fish. Etc. One kind has not changed into
KM> another. [P] Notice we still observe (present tense) micro-
KM> evolution. [P] I ask again for observations of macro-evolution
KM> happening."
 
Define "macro-evolution."
Define "micro-evolution."
Define "kind."
Tell us what makes a person a person.
Tell us what makes a dog a dog.
Tell us what makes a fish a fish.
Tell us what Creationists would accept as proof of "macro-evolution."
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation! NOT!!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:50:20 GMT

In <1992Oct1.163545@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

>   Okay, I'm a fool.  He WAS joking. (Wiping egg from face, 
>looking embarrased).

	I don't blame you, Dan.  With some of the pearls of creationist
reasoning (<== oxymoron) we've seen here, it was easy to make a mistake.

>Dan
>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Ben

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Differing accounts of creation in Genesis
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:32:47 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)

In article <91094@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>Temporal sequences are not ambiguous. They are expressed by what
>>is called in Hebrew grammars the "consecutive vav".

>All a consecutive vav does (without context) is give perfective meaning
>to imperfective forms.  Temporal sequence still has to be inferred.

I botched this.  That should be "all _this_ consecutive vav [the
beginning letter of G2:19] does is ...".  Consecutive vavs in the
middle of a sentence do usually give a relative temporal sequence,
and they may be attached to perfectives, and then some other stuff.

For an example where context clearly precludes temporality, see the
first letter in G3:24.  The preceding verse has God sending Adam out
from Eden, and then G3:24 begins "vayigaresh ..." (And [God] drove
[out the man]).  It's a consecutive vav (va-, not vi-), yet being a
repeat of what happened in the previous verse, it can't be temporal.

If you want to argue "the sending out" in G3:23 was the initial
announcement, and the "the driving out" in G3:24 is the actual
heave ho, and so these are temporal after all, be my guest.  But
at this point, you're interpreting the text, not merely reading
it.  I have no objections to interpretation, just to claims that
interpretations prove much of anything.

And of course, temporal sequences can be expressed in many ways, and
I didn't mean to imply otherwise by not mentioning the consecutive vav
in the previous posting.  Surely we're familiar with "it was evening
and it was morning, the third day."  My point remains that it's done
in a much different manner in Biblical Hebrew, one which almost no
translation can capture in general, and hence any claims regarding
contradictions in the Bible that depend on temporality have to refer
to the Hebrew.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Subject: Re: Request for your favorite creationist words
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 06:20:30 GMT

From article <1992Sep30.190729@IASTATE.EDU>, by kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub):
>   After producing the forTun program, someone suggested a stochastic system of
> producing generalized creationist arguments.  I have the mechanics all worked
> out, but I need help collecting keywords for the arguments.  [...]
>   And especially, any short one line incredibly dumb claim.  [...]

"You can't prove that evolution is true either."
"It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution."
"You're only considering what you can observe with your limited senses."
"You can't analyze it logically -- that's why you need faith."
"It says so in [some ancient literature]."
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:54:50 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1143@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|....
|Now, when one studies the array of teeth in mammals, the one whose teeth
|are *most* similar to ours is the pig!  Pigs teeth are so similar to human
|teeth that fossil pig jaw fragments can be confused with human jaw fragments
|even by experts.   Now guess what, of all of the animals on the earth today
|the one considered by nutritionists to have most nearly the same dietary
|requirements to us is, ta da, the pig - it is the standard 'human stand-in'
|in dietary experiments.
|
|Now, what is a pig, dietarily speaking?  It is the ultimate omnivore, it
|will eat just about *anything*.  Guess what we are?  (Hint, try naming
|something even remotely edible that some human culture somewhere does not
|eat).

I once read an entertaining science fiction story where the protagonist
was a biologist whose pet theory was that humans evolved from pigs.  :)
His boss didn't appreciate it very much.  Wish I could remember the book.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over agai
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:44:42 GMT

In article <5798.170.uupcb@ssr.com> jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio)  writes:
>-> >However, the two theories are indirectly in
>-> >conflict.  If the theory of evolution is correct, then a major portion of
>-> >Genesis gets wrecked.

I'm experiencing a sensation of deja vu.  The words that follow look like
something I wrote.

>-> So what?  God and Genesis are not the same thing.  While Genesis would be
>-> in big trouble without God, God can do quite well without Genesis.

Since I routinely look first for follow-ups to my postings, leaving my
network address in the article would be helpful.

>If Genesis is wrecked, a reasonable person's faith in the correctness of
>Bible would be shaken quite a bit.

This would be a good thing.

>After all, if one part is completely
>wrong, it casts a shadow of doubt on the rest too.

That seems reasonable.

>Since the Bible is a
>major part of Christianity, it does pose a bit of a problem...

For Christianity and Judaism and probably for Islam, too.  Would anyone
else be affected?

>Although
>one can certainly continue believing in God.

Socrates had no problem if we can believe what Plato wrote.

>-> >Hmm, just wondering.  Is this a part of the t.o FAQ?  If it isn't, it
>-> >should be.
>-> 
>-> I disagree.  Let's leave flawed argumentation to the creationists.
>
>I didn't mean "this" as this particular post, I meant "this" as in
>does-evo-disprove-god, since the question does appear occasionally.

It's probably a worthwhile item under "Philosophical aspects of evolution."
In one of his notebooks Darwin wrote, "Plato says in _Phaedo_ that our
'imaginary ideas' arise from the preexistence of the soul, are not derivable
from experience -- read monkeys for preexistence."

>BTW, apologies to all about the rather badly written original post, I should
>have clarified more...

Apology accepted.  Please keep posting.  The net is a great sounding board.

-- Herb Huston
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:35:43 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Oct2.120024.15852@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
>
>>[Someone else asks:]
>># Can you explain *what* the book has considered up to this point that
>># allows the author to conclude that Genesis is scientifically sound?
>
>>Antti Siivonen writes:
>>> Quite many. For instance the order life was created on earth. 
>
>>False.  Land plants ("day three") don't predate the Sun ("day four")
>>or fish ("day five").  Try again.
>
>	No, actually those refer to the visibility of sun. 

1. The fish refers to the visibility of the sun? I'm serious. If you
wanted to answer just one question, you could've edited the remainder
out.

2. I just read the beginning of genesis. It appears quite clear that it
refers to the sun & the moon, not their visibility. If that's just your
interpretation, well, then you can interpret it to be anything you want.

(If ya want to quibble about this point: if the sun was created on day 1
or 2, those 'days' were 8 (current) minutes or less. Land plants most
definitely did not appear 8 minutes after the sun was 'made'.)
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   custts@cc.helsinki.fi)                       00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: A palindrome for Antii
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 22:10:59 GMT

In most any of his articles, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !

In Antti's honor, I offer the following palindrome:

He's won ken of ill etiology; named a mere hoot, and no stats on DNA, too;
here made many go, "Lo, I tell if one knows, eh?"

In other words, He's gained knowledge of a bad theory of origins; what
he's said was merely laughable, and he's given no data to show he
understands genetics; this makes many readers here say, "Aha! I can tell
if you know what you're talking about!"
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Arkathon
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:57:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep26.172228@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) wrote:
>   Well, now hold on.  Certainly an Ark which contained all species of animals in
> the world, which survived a world-wide flood has never existed.  However, most
> stories, such as that of Noah's ark, are usually based on some fact.  I don't
> think anybody would be too suprised if there really was an ark that survived a
> _local_ flood on which the story is based.

I'm thinking about attending this, eh, 'conference', and if possible try to
ask
similar logical questions. Fortunately they don't burn heretics anymore
:-).

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
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: History or Science?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:55:40 GMT



kamphau@oktext.sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus) writes:
>So to restate my question, why is creationism focus on science to try to
>reveal something apart from what they claim to be a *created* history
>instead of making science a moot issue by claiming that it cannot
>assertain the 6K boundary and then seeking to express their beliefs as
>history?

Primarily because it doesn't put them in a good position to argue for the
replacement of (or even the co-existance with) evolution in the science
classrooms with their special Christian version of origins.  The admission
you suggest does not allow for any of their imitation "science-like"
activities to be presented as viable alternatives in classrooms.

Keith
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Genesis (was Deja vu all over again)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:40:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.015428.376@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>(emc)
>/The writers of Genesis would have turned in their graves if they knew
>/how their simple writings meant to convey their world view were being
>/so sterilized.
>
>Please, no more of this crap.  What gives you the right to say what the
>writers of Genesis would or would not have thought?  Were you there?
>Did you talk to them?  Did you write the book?

When I wanted to see the Burgess Shale fossils, I drove to the Smithsonian's
National Museum of Natural History (they're on your path as you walk from
the huge elephant whose name is *not* Jumbo to the dinosaurs).  When I wanted
to see the original manuscript of _Alice In Wonderland, I visited the British
Museum (I found that its title was _Alice's Adventures Underground_; there
were other differences).  In which museum can one find the original manuscript
of Genesis for comparison against present-day editions to guard against copying
errors and forgery?

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:26:12 GMT

In article <ksand-250992183218@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.123022.17318@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
>(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
>> 	those 60 steps, but takes again the number 1/1+E40. Besides, it is 
>> 	too big, when apes don't select random letters (see a child typing), 
>> 	they write like:
>
>> 	kygqdkcsgdADSKGAJDGSAGJHDSAJDJSDFASGJFgjhgjhadsfgjsadfghjsfgjhfsgjhasf
> 
>> 	not
> 
>> 	agrecdtkvbrfershiljhterdbojnfedxdjgfdds
>
>Well, it depends if they hit the caps lock key on by mISTAKE, AND THEN
>THEY TYPE CAPITAL LETTERS ALL THE TIME.
>
>I don't see the point, anyway. Personally I'm tired of the concept
>of apes writing Shakespeare. Galactic Empires, Volume 1, first story
>in the collection is a good introduction to the idiocy of apes
>writing Shakespeare. It's written by R. A. Lafferty. Good reading.

Well, just a few points:

1. Shakespeare couldn't type.
2. Kanzi, a bonobo, expresses his ideas by typing them at a keyboard.
3. Ai, a chimpanzee, can spell (sort of).
4. Koko, a gorilla, tells jokes.

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: talk.origins