HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:39:36 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

> > By all means don't "hold your breath". We have received so many letters,
> > most of them hostile (as a result of our "politically incorrect"
> > position regarding evolution),
> 
>    "Politically incorrect"?  I'm not even sure what it is yet; all
> we have is some muddle about probabilities and consciousness.

> > answer them all. If you can obtain the book Mechanistic and
> > Nonmechanistic Science, that would be the best way to understand the
> > argument. (Yes, we are plugging this book. But that's ok, it is a good

>    Sorry, I can't, it's not in our library (hmmm, I wonder why that
> could be...must be the evilutionist(tm) conspiracy!) and I haven't 
> got time to go searching through bookstores to find it.  I'm dying 
> to hear your summary of the proof though.

Then read it in the other posts. And if you really wanted the book, you
would get it.

>    Velikovsky had lots of published papers too, didn't he?

Yes, so do Dawkins and Gould. Oh, but then, you AGREE with them, right?
So their papers REALLY count, right?

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:59:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.150247.7193@nic.funet.fi>, TMakinen writes:
>>We can say what consciousness is, but first we would like your opinion:
>>what is it, what happens to it after death, and why?
> 
>Mom, where do all the little word processors go when I switch the computer
off?

"Of course there's a Silicon Heaven.  Where else would all the dead calculators
go?"
       -Kryten (Red Dwarf)

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:58:51 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu wrote:


:Then how did Noah's Ark get on top of a mountain? Or did it evolve there over 
: the past million years?
: --Ray Cote


	Ray, you clever evolutionist-baiting tape recorder -- as soon
as you find Noah's Ark on top of a mountain, we'll discuss how it got
there.  And you'd better have proof, such as the entire keel with Noah's
name carved in it.

	Until then, we will assume the mountaintop was just part of the
STORY.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:21:49 GMT

In article <q8m3TB6w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes: 
>> >But if the bacterium is being pressured by "natural selection" (i.e. a
>> >hostile environment) to mutate and reproduce or perish, then if it
>> >doesn't get just the right burst of cosmic rays at the right time, it
>> >will perish and decompose back into its component chemicals. Is it not
>> >so?
>> 
>> Oh, absolutely. What with the selection pressure of antibiotics the
bacterium
>> that cause syphilis and gonorrhea are just disappearing, right? :-)
>> Is it purely by chance that these and other diseases treated with 
>> antibiotics are producing resistant strains?
> 
> I'm not sure I can read through the sarcasm. Do you mean to say that,
> despite the pressure of the alleged mechanism of "natural selection"
> (or, sarcastically, "unnatural selection") organisms can and do survive?
> And that if organisms do change, it is not by "random mutation" but is
> instead a somehow intelligent response to the environment?

  Are you saying that the bactrium are carefully analizing the antibiotics,
determining the effects caused, and then redesigneing their genetic structure to
be resistant.  The answer is no, the mutation that allows resistance was just a
random chance.

  the point he was trying to make is that the effect you regard as unlikely is
both common and documented.

> Does this mean that you think organisms do actually change into new
> species by some process, although not by the processes of random
> mutation and natural selection as claimed by most evolutionists? Or do
> you support the thesis that the forms of the living organisms have been
> surviving more or less intact since their "creation"?

  What do you mean?  His paragraph makes it clear what he means: it has been
observed that certain diseases have mutated in a way that allowed them to
survive better in an altered environment, to whit: one with antibiotics.

  This is a well know, and well documented, fact.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 8 Nov 1992 09:33:15 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: shrike.und.ac.za
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
: 
:   The probability of evolution of higher life forms by known physical
: processes during a 4.5 billion year period is bounded by an UPPER limit
: of 10e-150000.

Once upon a time, in my misspent youth, I used that argument.  It's garbage.
 
:   The entire history of the earth would have to be repeated over and over
: again at least 10e150000 times for there to be a substantial chance that
: higher living entities would evolve even once.

Learn some probability.  Also, why *shouldn't* there have been this many
opportunities?  Whe can't know anything outside of the universe created
by the Big Bang, so there might be countless earthlike planets.

:   This shows that the standard dogma that evolution of higher life forms
: will occur "given enough time" is false, at least for any of the
: current estimates of the earth's age.

No it doesn't.

:   These statements are from Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, by
: Dr. Richard Thompson. His arguments are based on information theory
: and molecular biology. The proof is straightforward.

Do post it 8-)

	-Hal
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 06:34:04 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:

> Glad to hear that the proof is so straightforward. Give it to us
> in your next post. Or is this a "proof is left as an exercise for the
> reader" kind of thing. 
> 
> Waiting.... (but not holding my breath)

Yes, it is straightforward, but it is not brief. I will develop it post
by post and point by point, although my intention was for people to read
the book, since Dr. Thompson is a much better scientist and expositor
than I.

First point: The known laws of physics possess low information content.
Second point: biological organisms possess high information content.

These assertions will be treated in the first installment.

By all means don't "hold your breath". We have received so many letters,
most of them hostile (as a result of our "politically incorrect"
position regarding evolution), that it is taking much of our time to
answer them all. If you can obtain the book Mechanistic and
Nonmechanistic Science, that would be the best way to understand the
argument. (Yes, we are plugging this book. But that's ok, it is a good
and important book. Dr. Thompson is not a "crackpot", he is a professional
scientist with a long list of published papers, etc....)

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: TMakinen
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: <none>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 11:56:16 GMT

In article <cR6wTB13w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>But if the bacterium is being pressured by "natural selection" (i.e. a
>hostile environment) to mutate and reproduce or perish, then if it
>doesn't get just the right burst of cosmic rays at the right time, it
>will perish and decompose back into its component chemicals. Is it not
>so?

Yeah. That's just right. The ones that are not lucky enough to have a suitable
mutation will perish when there is strong pressure in some direction. Still
there may be a lot of those who do have luck. Have you heard, by the way, that
E.Coli is reported to be able to force (at least some) needed mutations to
happen? Not that I rely on this argument but have you taken care of this kind
of "coinsidenses" in your calculations?

Teemu Makinen
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 06:57:59 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:

> >>  These statements are from Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, by
> >>Dr. Richard Thompson. His arguments are based on information theory
> >>and molecular biology. The proof is straightforward.
> >>
> >>Sincerely,
> >>Kalki Dasa
> 
> Most of the "proofs" of this sort that I have seen run under the perhaps
> unwitting assumption that there is only one "test tube" where everything
> is happening.  The probability may be 10e-150000 that life will form in
> one test tube (not that I believe that, or course), but when you have
> 10e150000 test tubes spread over the Earth's surface in those shallow
> seas and deep sea vents, the probability becomes more like a sure thing. 

A "primordial soup" one kilometer thick covering the entire surface of
the earth with an average of one protein molecule per 10,000 cubic
angstroms. (See "What is Matter and What is Life" by Dr. T.D. Singh and
Dr. Richard L. Thompson, Bhaktivedanta Institute monograph #1, 1977)

> 
> Not having read Thompson's paper/book, I don't know if he also makes the 
> mistake that I have also seen before- that a human must spring full-formed
> from the primordial soup.  Once any sort of self-replicating or even non-
> degrading pre-life-form arises, the process begins to accelerate past the
> totally random.  The process doesn't start from scratch at each step, i.e.
> if the bacterium fails its "dice roll" to add this or that base pair to 
> its DNA, it doesn't go back to its component chemicals.
>

But if the bacterium is being pressured by "natural selection" (i.e. a
hostile environment) to mutate and reproduce or perish, then if it
doesn't get just the right burst of cosmic rays at the right time, it
will perish and decompose back into its component chemicals. Is it not
so?

Since the doctrine of evolution does not state that a human being
springs "full-formed from the primordial soup", no valid critique of
evolution can proceed as if this is what evolution claims.

> It should be interesting to see what kind of evidence KD will post.

After all, you can read the book if you want to.

We will begin by posing (and eventually answering) the question: what is
the information content of the known laws of physics?


Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:48:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1L7TTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>To us, however, 

Let me guess, the Hare Krishna are a communal organism like the Borg.
Is resistance futile?

>What is consciousness?

Just out of curiosity, have you ever read what other people have had
to say on the subject?  It's been quite popular through history you
know, and some people have approached the subject with a modicum of
rigor.  (Matthew if you're reading this, I've finished _The Origins of
Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_, and I still
think it's gibberish.)

>Consider a body at the moment before and the moment after death. What is
>it that is different between these two states? Except in cases of death
>by massive trauma (such as being blown up), the structural integrity and
>chemical constitution of the body are not very different at the two
>instants. What, then, determines the instant of death?

I once read a fascinating essay that was prompted by someone looking
at the aftermath of a rodent that had recently been killed by a
shotgun blast.  The essay described what the author imagined was
occurring in different bits of the varmint as time progressed.  I
particularly remember a description of the white blood cells valiantly
fighting the myriad of "foreign" objects that they were encountering--
the WBC's were completely oblivious to the lack of necessity of their
actions.  Nobody told them they were dead.  Perhaps you should ask
yourself if there really is an "instant of death", and why you think
there is.

>We would answer by saying that the soul, or the consciousness, has
>departed, and therefore the organism is no longer alive.

However, if you don't tell us what this thing is that's departed, and
tell us how we can test for its presence then you've added nothing to
our thinking of what consciosness or even life is for that matter.

>Kalki Dasa

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:49:06 GMT

In article <BeJ1TB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
[deleted, but appears later]
> Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary defines consciousness as
> follows: (first two definitions given here)
> 
> 1a: the quality or state of being aware esp. of something within
> oneself.
> 
> 1b: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state or
> fact.
> 
> Definition 1b is circular, using the word "conscious" to define
> consciousness.

  No.  Not unless the definition of conscious uses "consciousness" in its
definition.  It doesn't, so the definition isn't circular.

> Granted that consciousness is some kind of "state" belonging to the
> genus "awareness", we then ask what is awareness? And so on. The point
> is that here is a real phenomenon that everyone has direct experience of
> but which is treated as if nonexistent by modern science.

  By Websters definition it has been addressed by Psychology, Philosophy, and
Computer Science.  Since you still haven't given a clear presentation of your
definition it has not been addressed by science to to lack of anything to
address.

> Evidently, consciousness is something very hard to understand. Therefore
> it is truly a mystery; so much of a mystery in fact that science does
> not "officially" acknowledge its existence.

  Science cannot "acknowledge the existence of" something which nobody has given
any definition to.  Science explains what is observable.  What is undefined is
unobservable.  Therefore your statement will be true until you come up with some
way of measuring conciousness.  Until then you are making up an nonexistant
issue.

  Just out of curiosity, do you have any scientific training?  Did you take any
in High School, College?

> > How can you say this if you don't know what consciousness is?
> 
> We can say what consciousness is, but first we would like your opinion:
> what is it, what happens to it after death, and why?

  Well, you (pl) have got it.  Websters seems to be the concensus so far.

  This kind of dodginess is not looked upon as any sign of intelligence in this
forum (except by some creationists).

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: apology
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 03:40:51 GMT

In article <100918@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>Lionel is, by contrast, a disgrace to his species.

I object to such sentiments, be they applied to humans, chimps, or whatever.
They imply that we should measure ourselves based on the actions of others--
an idea I wholeheartedly reject.  Lionel is a disgrace to nobody besides
Lionel.  (Furthermore, I must say that I'm not qualified enough even to make
that claim.  I should say no more than that Lionel's behavior on
talk.origins is often disgraceful.)
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Isochron FAQ
Date: 12 Nov 92 12:20:47 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

The subject says it all. Could somebody send it to me? Thanks.

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Summary: what model of selection in this calculation?
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:08:45 GMT

: From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
: Message-ID: <97114@netnews.upenn.edu>
:: From: kalki33!system@lakes 
:: Message-ID: <JNi2TB2w165w@kalki33>
:: [..there is a..] --virtually infinitesimal-- probability that a
:: living cell could have arisen by random molecular combination under
:: natural selection, even given a period of time much longer than the
:: estimated age of the earth.
: No one believes in random molecular combinations.  Molecules combine
: and break up according to the laws of physics and chemistry, which are
: not random.  If you don't take this into account in the calculation,
: it's a proof of nothing.

Is there any strong evidence that nucleotides, by chemistry
alone, tend to produce good replicators?  Simiarly for other models
of abiogenisis.  Though, agreed that to speak of "random molecular
combinations" is a harbinger of a bogus model to start with.

As for me, my suspicions would lead me to investigate the model of
"natural selection" that this "proof" is claimed to have.  It seems
very likely to be deficient, since from other hints we see that the
model seems to be treating the primordial soup as zillions of isolated
cells until at least one "living cell" pops out of one of them.

Not that my curiosity makes me burn with desire to read the book to
find where the error in the model actually IS.  As Marvin says in
HGTTG, "Sounds AWWWWful".  (Or perhaps also relevant:  "Life.  Don't
talk to me about life.")

  ( "Brain the size of a planet, and he wants me to critique
     yet another "probability of abiogenisis" argument... )

( But speaking of models of abiogenisis, does anybody know any
  details about the one that supposes replicators may have arisen
  from the chemistry of the ATP power cycle, instead of RNA,
  proteins in general, or even clay... ?  Just wondered if anybody'd
  heard of that one, and had some details. )
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:18:39 GMT

In article <BZL3TB4w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
> 
> > Kalki Dasa writes:
> > 
> > >First point: The known laws of physics possess low information content.
> > >Second point: biological organisms possess high information content.
> > 
> >> First point:  The rules of chess possess low information content
> >> Second point: the number of possible games are some 10^70 i.e. high
informati
> >> content.
> 
> So, you agree with our two stipulations?
> 
> Has anyone ever observed a game of chess being played at random, without
> the moves being made by either human beings or by a machine constructed
> by human beings? Has this ever happened?

  Has anyone ever seen the universe act totally at random?  Laws are laws.  You
are ignoring the relationship.

> Before this can work, r0 must be specified and X0 must be specified.

  Look: something existed on the primordal Earth.  There, initial conditions. 
Happy?

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins