HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dave Nash)
Subject: Neutrinos.  (was:  Holden Q&A...)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:51:15 GMT

In article <Td5-10_@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>In article <BvvA4C.MHq@scd.hp.com> dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller) writes:
>>Come on, now, Wayne. The explanation is simple: Neutrinos are a bullshit
>>fiction of those cnspiratorial balckguard physicists like that weasel
>>Merritt. Everyone know that!

Nonsense!  As anyone with half a neuron left could see for himself, the only
explanation is that electromagnetic interactions between particle
physicists and funding agencies lead to a reduced felt effect of neutrinos
in national and university research laboratories.  If this were not so, then
obviously physicists and other scientists would coalesce into an ignorant
(yes I realize that is redundant) lump that would not have the funds to support
itself on its own!  But what should have I have expected from 
such second cousins of astronomers, anyway?

> To be fair, we should mention that Earth-based detectors have found
>significantly fewer neutrinos that were expected; of course, Ted's
>'model' (if we can so debase the term by applying it to Ted's post)
>has trouble explaining *any* neutrinos...

No, the solar neutrino anomaly is very simply explained:

There exists some fairly small object (or objects) between
the Sun and our neutrino detectors that is absorbing most of the neutrinos.
Since normal matter has a really small neutrino absorption cross-section, it's
obvious that there is only one mass known in the Universe that is dense enough 
to do the job.  

Regular readers of t.o. should have already figured out what this mass must be.

>>-- 
>>Dave Waller
>Sincerely,
>
>Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
>                            || not those of the University of
>ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
-- 
David Nash                  | Gradual Student, Chemistry
                            | University of Illinois (Urbana)
(dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)    | This .sig is made of 100% recycled electrons.
(nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu)   | No binary trees were killed to make it.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:38:04 GMT

In article <1531@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
writes:
> In article <ksand-111092153247@wintermute.apple.com>
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct9.221500.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
> >kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu wrote:
> >>No, in fact it makes it easer, because the Earth's surface was
> >>smoother then, so the Flood wouldn't have to cover such a depth;
> >>then when the Earth contracted its surface assumed a bumpier form
> >>and the water went into the lower parts, what are now the oceans.
> 
> >The hollow Earth would also explain where all the water disappeared.
> >Down there! I guess we still have all the water under our feet. And
> >that also increased the gravity force.
> 
> >Hepp, I think I could become a pretty good creation scientist...
> 
> Why does the Earth need to be hollow to be less dense?

  Of course!!!  The earth wasn't actually less dense, it was the felt effect of
molecular bonding.  You see, back then molecules had a lower binding force, and
so were much larger.  The result: a larger Earth (as well as everything else (ie
dinosaurs)).

  Since saturn was bigger it would be more clearly visible in the sky and that
explains all the Holden stuff.  Then, about, what, 4000 years ago, the binding
force increased and everything in the universe shrunk.  This would even explain
all the stories about giants: people who failed to shrink!

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Holden and the C programming language
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:13:09 GMT

In article <67@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <718507718@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
> or rather brings nit-picking to a new level:

  Really funny for someone who attacks grammar in many of his responses (and
then feels hes proven the argument false).

> > First of all, the program as posted is not ANSI conforming.  Nor is it a
> > legal K&R C program.  
> 
> K&R C compilers, free with UNIX, are a classic example of getting what
> you pay for in life.  

  Well, cc is free (technically) and ANSI compliant.  It certainly isn't in my
top ten list for great C compilers (who the hell cares about a warning that
'const' isn't implemented?), but it is fully ANSI compliant, and it would have
died on your program without question.

  Indeed, the only compiler I can think of that would work on your program is
Turbo C (and only because they violated several ANSI restrictions).

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Onar is probably right (was Re: Clarification)
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:09:48 GMT



Andy, If you read my reply, I moderated my assumption that species simply HAVE
to stay within its own 'kind', as you put it, unless an increase in complexity
occurs. This could easily be disproven by the fact that there are a lot more
species of birds, not to mention insects, than there are of mammals. If
speciation was due only to increase in the number of genes then this would imply
that birds as well as insects possess more genes than mammals. And this, as far
as I know, is false. 

     As far as "genetic unstability" is concerned: This is not some "magic" 
expression which states that a duplication renders havoc in the genes. (I have
never stated this) It simply means that after a genetic change which leads to a 
sufficiently large morphological change the specie is no longer adapted to its 
environment. I used the examples of birds. When they first started using their 
wings for flying they were not at all 'red barons' in the sky. I.e. there was 
genetic unstability. (The term is abstract). Then a severe selective preassure 
leads to the optimal solutions which we know from birds today. I.e genetic 
stability was reached. Note that gene duplications does not automatically induce 
genetic unstability. In fact, the opposite is true. Only a low percentage of the 
gene duplications leads to genetic unstability. The rest will have little or no 
impact on the specie and will gradually erode ( because of the second law of 
thermodynamics.(I hope that I wont be flamed because of my free use of the 2nd
law of thermodynamics)). Hence the large amount of junk DNA (not all of it).
 
    Also genetic unstability does not have to come from changes in the genome.
The original area where genetic unstability occurs is when the environment, in
which a specie lives, changes and thereof the adaption of the specie. In fact,
the analogy to genetic instability is how adapted a specie is to its environment. 

   I haven't seen any comments yet on 'Further Clarification'. Does this mean
that you have accepted my explanation?

Onar.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Microevolution and Macroevolution
Date: 13 Oct 1992 01:45:12 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct12.081708.24438@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>
> In technical terms we might say that an organism (with N genes) is a
> DYNAMICAL SYSTEM which means that the organism can successfully change 
> BUT within certain bondages. In other words, LIMITED change, or change 
> within the DYNAMIC RANGE of the system. (provided that the # of genes 
> is constant)

What Mr Aam appears to have done here is to recognize the 
difficulty with the usual claim of Creationists that there 
are 'limits" to evolution.  As we know, whenever they are
asked to show evidence of such limits, or to explain how
they are implemented, they back off and fall silent.

What Mr Aan has done is to bury his limits one level down
in the argument.  Instead of asserting that change runs
up against unspecified 'limits", he proposes that micro-
and macro-evolution depend on different mechanisms because
of something he calls a "dynamic range".

But what is "dynamic range"?   Surely Mr Aan now has to
show us evidence that such a thing as Dynamic Range really
exists, or even better, tell us how it works.

Incidentally, if he really means what he says about 
organisms being dynamical systems, he's already in trouble, 
since dynamical systems sometimes exhibit very large
state changes in response to very small changes in input.
In other words, there is no need to postulate two different
mechanisms for large and small scale state change.    

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 19:26:40 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Oct7.180348.203007@uctvax.uct.ac.za> watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>In article <YM3-MW-@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct2.130253.202956@uctvax.uct.ac.za> watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>> 
>> [extensive deletions]
>> 
>>>The idea behind the JEPD theory is that since the OT is factually unreliable (a
>>>positon which has been over-turned since the 1800's) the 'history' of the OT is
>>>Myth (a technical term for historical-fiction, i.e. there is a kernel of
>> [stuff deleted]
>>>Gary

>>  May I point out (this being talk.origins and all) that, at least insofar
>> at the first few chapters of Genesis are concerned, the archaeological
>> evidence does *not* support the Bible's version of history. (At least,
>> if you insist on a literal interpretation.)
>>  Its Middle-East and Near-East chronology may well be substantially (or
>> even completely) correct, as far as archaeological evidence is concerned,
>> but not beyond a couple thousand years B.C.
>>  Oh, well.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Ray Ingles          
>
>Please tell me WHAT ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence might be derived from Genesis:1-3?
>Paleontological and geological view points CAN be debated (what t.o is all
>about),but Gen:1-3 lays down NOTHING that ARCHAEOLOGY can get a grip to. This

 Ummm... we find settlements and burial grounds and so forth well before
Genesis claims the Earth began (again, by a literal interpretation.)
Noah's flood 'occured' smack dab in the middle of ancient Egypt. And so
on. 
 Just to make a point.

>was the purpose of my post, a reply to rejecting the Genesis account because
>of Wellhausen's JEPD theory, a theory which became widely accepted because of
>archaeological support, which was later overruled. There is a double logic
>inconsistancy here. Firstly the basis for general acceptance of JEPD was later
>overturned. Secondly, the early chapters CANNOT EVER BE VERIFIED BY
>ARCHAEOLOGY since there is nothing in them relating to the subject, no detailed
>description of cultural accruments, city sites etc.
>
>In other words, raising the JEPD theory in the discussion of origins is
>invalid.

 I apologize for misunderstanding you posting, but even so, there is
archaeological evidence contradicting the history given in the first
few chapters of Genesis. Not *all* of it, of course, but some.

>Gary


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Please Help
Summary: Surveys and USENET don't mix.
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 17:46:38 GMT

In article <330001@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:
>              Please answer these 9 questions and return.
	. . .

Please learn something about taking surveys before actually taking
them.  Surveys require a high response rate before you can get any
useful information out of them.  On USENET, you can't even measure
accurately what the response rate is.  Also, some of your questions
appear badly formed for various reasons, particularly #4, which
uses a lot of emotionally loaded words.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Darwinism is dead !
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:01:25 GMT

>  The greatest problem is the conclusion drawn from observing the results
>  of inflicting mutations induced by radiation and chemicals upon
>  thousands of generations of laboratory fruit flies.  The fruit fly
>  watchers found the same `law' as Luther Burbank:  Even the variations
>  produced by mutations could only be pushed so far.  Beyond a certain
>  point they proved lethal or the flies became sterile.  If left alone
>  for a few generations, even the most severely mutated flies that
>  retained their fertility returned to normal or something close to it.
>
Came to think of it. This may very well be an effect of something as simple as
recessive genes. If the original gene was recessive, and the mutated gene is
dominant, the original gene will reoccur in some specimens of the later
generations.

If so then the person who wrote this book suffers from severe braindamage. This
is elementary genetics, and the above quote could only be written by a twisted
mind.


Onar.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Clarification on Microevolution and Macroevolution
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:55:06 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1bevabINNbdc@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>, jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
>
> The onus is on the one explaining to explain in such a fashion that
> his readers can understand.  Telling us to go away until we are
> smart enough to talk to you is likely to be counterproductive and
> doesn't improve communication.


Clap, clap.   Right on.     Also, Mr Aan telling us we're 
not smart enough to talk to him is just a variant on the 
religious Creationists' claim that we are not moral enough 
to talk to them.

jon.
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:50:42 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Oct13.113238@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

*> In article <PHS.92Oct11161638@cassiopee.lifia.imag.fr>,
 
*>If and when I ever change one of my views on any of these topics, I'll be
*>very up front about it...  you won't have to figure out whether it's
*>happening or not.

*  Congratulations Ted.  Your dredging up of posts from years ago has made a
*believer out of me.

Non Sequitor.

*>Bigger is better
*>until you come to some point at which larger equates with disfunction.  In
*>some cases, that might mean blowing a niche of some sort.  In many other
*>cases, such as dogs, disfunction due to size means real disfunction, hip
*>problems etc.
*
*  So now, Ted, we have a post in which you say creatures must re-evolve into
*larger sizes, and one where you say they don't.  Are you going to be up front
*about it?

My claim is consistant.  Not ALL creatures would re-evolve;  some would find
their niches at smaller sizes.  But at least one would.  The advantages are
huge.  Greater size and strength mean:

1.  Better chances in competition for mating rights within species.
2.  Greater abilities to deal with predators/prey from other species.
3.  Fewer slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in life generally.

The fact that NO creature has ever revolved into such sizes in all this
huge expanse of time which supposedly has passed since sauropods lived tells
us something.  It can't happen.

And you'll be able to tell your grandchildren you heard it from the source:
yours truly.

*
*> 5.  We've had a number of the t.o regulars claiming that a squat thrust
*> is somehow a very inefficient way to come up with weight, i.e. that animals
*> have some magical way of coming up/standing up with is far  more efficient.
*> They ought to take their insight to the American Olympic weightlifting
*> team.  Those guys have been looking for more efficient ways to get weight
*> up for decades, and haven't found one.
*
*  Ted, didn't I point out the first time I heard you bring this up that you
*should really watch some PBS.  Anyone who has seen a nature special on elephants
*can tell you that elephants get up one leg at a time, never lifting their entire
*weight at once.

Then the elephants need to watch weight-lifting events on HBO more than they
do.  They're (the elephants) doing it the wrong way.
*
*  I'm willing to bet Kaz could have lifted alot more weight if it had been
*strapped to his back while he lied face down on the ground.  With limbs built
*for lifting in that direction an animal could do much better.
*
A quadruped isn't really built for lifting weight very well.  CARRYING weight
yes, assuming they've already got the weight up...  But when you think about
it, the only quadruped which really does anything resembling an efficient
lift, such as a benchpress, would be a crockadile or some other such
amphibian, i.e. arms splayed such as a humans are in benching, thus using
pectorals and triceps.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Further Clarification
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:20:23 GMT

>>In an earlier article I stated that life as a whole is tending towards greater
>>complexity. This is a huge topic which is hard to prove or disprove, maybe even
>>impossible. But I will give it a shot.
>
>[shot deleted] ...
>
>>This might sound slightly philosophical, but it's only biology.
>>Comments are appreciated.
>
>I have one comment.  Please read Stephen Jay Gould's book entitled
>_Wonderful Life_.
>


I think I have read that book.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksiew@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (steven kok-hsien siew)
Subject: What makes a creationist?
Keywords: creationist
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:07:27 GMT

  After reading the articles posted by several creationist,
I get the feeling that creationist are a totally different
spicies altogether.
 
This brings to mind the following questions.
 
1) Have anyone done a psychological profile of
   a creationist? What are his motives? 
 
2) Why do creationist put up arguements that even
   a high school science student can find holes in?
 
3) Why do creationist keep bringing religion into
   their "theories"? Can't their theories stand on
   their own.
 
4) Why do creationist keep insisting that the bible
   is the literal truth? 
 
5) Why do people "become" creationist in the first place?
   What kind of people accepts these creationist
   ideas?
 
6) What economic benefits do "crackpots" have in 
   advancing their creationist arguements?
 
Well, here are my questions. Feel free to voice your
opinions. 
 
Steven K.H. Siew
 
*** Thank God, I'm an atheist  
 
ps: If you want some entertainment try reading
    old creationist text published in the 60s.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Teemu Makinen
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars)
Organization: Finnish Academic and Research Network Project - FUNET
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 06:19:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.154046.21572@athena.mit.edu> lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren
King) writes:
>
>Pi can also be defined as the sum of a convergent series (I don't
>recall off-hand what the series is, however).  Wouldn't this get
>around the problem of a geometric definition?

Pi is much more than just a ratio, it is a very fundamental number in our
mathematics. Consider, that

     e^(i*Pi) + 1 = 0  ,

joining together e, i, Pi and the identity elements of multiplication and
addition, respectively.
The series you mentioned is probably the Leibnitz's formula derived from the
equation

     Integrate(0,1) ( dx/(1 + x^2) ) = Arctan(1) - Arctan(0) = Pi/4

Then, expanding the integrand into a Taylor series and integrating term by
term, we obtain

     Pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - ...

This series, however, converges so slowly that it is useless for numerical
calculation. There are lots of better choices around.
You get Pi out almost always, when you carry out complex integrals like Fourier
transforms. That is suggested by the residue theorem, for example.

Teemu Makinen  --- teemu.makinen@fmi.fi