HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: CWACKers and Complexity (bits of information definition)
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:14:32 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:

> In article <7F9VTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

> >A typical protein molecule in an E. coli cell contains about 300 amino
> >acid subunits. Each subunit may be any one of twenty different amino
> >acids. The number of possible protein molecules of this size is
> >therefore 20e300. each protein may be uniquely specified by a string of
> >300 Log 20 = 1297 bits (log to base 2).
> 
> You *can't* be so stupid as to use this as an argument, can you?
> *Nobody* says proteins appeared spontaneously.

What are you takling about? What does giving a method for specifying the
information content of a protein have to do with its origin? In this
post, I was responding to a question about determining the information
content of cellular protein. It was a technical issue. You must be
confusing this post with something else.

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: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:32:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.112019.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
[extraneous attributions deleted]
>bkorb@starbase.Convergent.Com (Bruce Korb) writes:
>> |> 	The flood did not cover mountains.  It covered a giant fertile
>> |> 	valley where humans lived at the time.
>
>Then how did Noah's Ark get on top of a mountain? Or did it evolve there over 
>the past million years?

Okay, I'll bite:

Ray, please post your scientific evidence that Noah's Ark "got on top of
a mountain."

You should note that this is yet another chance to prove to us that you have
some substance behind your (baldly) assertive facade.  You have missed
several opportunities already; most notable among these missed opportunities
are the *two* times you ignored our responses to your claims that (1)
population growth is exponential, and (2) fossils cannot be used as
evidence for evolution.  In addition, you have *seized* several opportunities
to support our current hypothesis (that you are an ignorant idiot who
enjoys attempting to push people's buttons); i.e., when you insisted
that we had never answered claims (1) and (2) above, and when you "ran 
away like a scared rabbit" when the answers were posted again.

[Aside to t.o scorekeepers:  notice that I resisted the urge to virtually
guarantee myself 2 points by starting my response with "So I suppose
you will be posting your scientific evidence..."  As experience has
told us, such a ploy on my part would have doubtlessly brought about
a non-responsive "Yup" or "Gladly" from the cotera.  I thought that,
in the interest of exploring the miniscule probability that the cotera
has some desire to *learn* something, a direct question was a better
course of action to take.  Besides, I get more points when the cotera
avoids a direct question, right :-) ?]

>--Ray Cote

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:22:14 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

TMakinen writes:

> In article <HN5wTB11w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >First point: The known laws of physics possess low information content.
> 
> The theory contains not much information. The solutions contain huge or
> infinite amount of information. Meditate the quantum field theory to enlighte
> yourself about the difference between the theory and the solutions.

Yes, the solutions have high information content, and this is because
the initial conditions or the boundary conditions have high information
content. These conditions are not part of the laws themselves, but must
be stated explicitly. There must be a source of information to draw from
in order for a system of low "order" to appear to "evolve" to a system
of high "order. In the absence of laws with high information content,
that source must be the boundary or the initial state. This is standard
statistical mechanics, isn't it?

> >Second point: biological organisms possess high information content.
> 
> As solutions of simple laws.

Simple laws plus boundary/initial conditions. The issue is, where do
these boundary/initial conditions come from? If they are also solutions
of simple laws, then we will have an infinite sequence of laws, which
means that the totality of physical laws actually has infinite
information content. But that defeats the program of science by placing
forever beyond reach the possibility of finding a unified explanation
for the world. Is it not so?

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: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ted cleans up his act
Date: 14 Nov 92 03:55:04 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Nov10.231927.3971@athena.cs.uga.edu>, keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
> [Ted's list of shame deleted]
 
> I think this should serve as a warning to anyone who has direct
> personal contact with Ted- he seems to be quite obsessive in
> keeping track of things that offend him/Bales.  I read a
> manager's "Danger Signs in Employees" pamphlet once, and
> keeping a list of wrongs was a biggie.  I know those things
> weren't directed at you, Ted, but don't you think that's a bit 
> compulsive?  Obsessive?  Strange? 

If I were to keep a list of the flammage that goes across t.o for even two
weeks, it would be a longer list than the little one which Mr. D'Ippollito
compiled and which I saved off and occasionally repost (to remind the t.o
regular crew of what _____s they are).  

Two items to note:

1.  It is always the case that anybody presenting anything other than the
standard uniformitarian/evolution view on t.o subjects himself to a LOT of
flammage and , if he then answers one or two of the flammers in kind, it 
appears that he is calling a lot of people bad things (and hence must be
some sort of a wildman) while each of the others is only calling HIM a
___*&^%$, and hence is seen as more reasonable.  I don't view this approach
as reasonable, or the judgement valid.  Rather than get bent out of shape
at this phenomenon (people calling me a wildman for replying to idiots
in kind), I have simply retained the little D'Ippollito sampler to repost
at odd times.  Nothing psychotic there at all.  Which is not to say that
you cannot study abnormal psychology on t.o;  try following the postings
of James meritt for a week or two...

2.  The invective which the so-called scientific community reserves for 
those who do NOT buy off on uniformity/evolution, indicates that this, of
all areas, is the one in which modern science is on least sure ground.

The American people do pretty well for themselves, long term:  consider 
the way they just shit-canned George Bush.  The fact that the American 
public has never really bought off on evolution during the 60 or so odd
years during which evolution has been the official position of our
schools has to tell you something;  either evolution is wrong outright, or
something is massively wrong in the manner in which it is being taught
and/or explained (mechanism).


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller)
Subject: Re: I reiterate my blender request
Keywords: AWESOME
Organization: Hewlett Packard
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:06:56 GMT

In article <100633@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|> If your chimp-like
|> mental powers are too feeble or too pusillanimous to face reality, you
|> might as well enjoy your delusion to its fullest. 

Now, now, Chris, how could Lionel's mental powers possibly be pusillanimous?
I mean, sure, Mr. Tun himself could be pusillanimous, and indeed there is
ample evidence of it. However, intellectual capability just can be cowardly.
Only people can.

Great word, though!

Dave "vocabulary monitor" Waller
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:20:19 GMT

In article <Bx6Dnn.F9r@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
> In article <Hq9NTB1w164w@cellar.org> kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger) writes:
>>bkorb@starbase.Convergent.Com (Bruce Korb) writes:
>>> |> 	The flood did not cover mountains.  It covered a giant fertile
>>> |> 	valley where humans lived at the time.

Then how did Noah's Ark get on top of a mountain? Or did it evolve there over 
the past million years?
--Ray Cote
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:57:59 GMT

In article <n0e24t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Richard.Rearden.@.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>Most will say it's a theory, but there is nothing else to dispute it.  The
>true
>Evolutionist will state that it is a fact of life.  Christian's, that small
>fraction of the world's population, Claim it is a lie, a false teaching,
>a sign of the times'.

Were Charles Kingsley, Henri-Edouard-Prosper Breuil, and Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin Christians?

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:38:33 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <e0N3TB8w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
> 
>> > "A typical initial condition for a model of the origin of life will
>> > consist of an ensemble of possible initial states, such as one of the
>> > thermodynamic ensembles of statistical mechanics or some simple
>> > combination of these....Such an ensemble can be specified by a simple
>> > equation or a brief set of equations." (Page 107)
>> 
>>    Bullshit.  This means you need to have a particular model of abiogenisis i
>> mind and there isn't one yet.  Again the "straitforward" proof can't be right
>> because it rests on wildly unknown facts, e.g. the mechanism of abiogenisis. 
>> The above paragraph is essentially "I will make a cool sounding but nonsensic
>> initial assumption, the better to grind my axe."  You _should_ be aware of th
>> if you're going to claim such "proofs".
> 
> 
> If there isn't a model for abiogenesis "yet", then why do supposedly
> reputable scientists make the premature claim that life arose from
> non-life? Unless a model can be shown to be correct, then it is not
> scientific to claim that the phenomenon occurred, is it? No one has ever
> seen a living organism arise from an assemblage of lifeless matter, have
> they?

   They're not making an unsupported assertion, it's an educated guess
based on the non-interference of supernatural beings.  That does not
mean that such interference is strictly ruled out.

   Anyway, you didn't answer Dan Ashlock's challenge.  If it isn't 
scientific to state that abiogenesis occured, then why is Thompson
basing his argument on not only the occurence but the existence of 
a specific model?  Is this an admission that Thompson is not using
scientific methods?

>> >> In actual fact, the probability of evolution of higher life forms is
>> >> bounded below by 0 and bounded above by 1.  Any more definite statement
>> >> is an exercise in intellectual fraud.
>> > 
>> > Where did you get this "actual fact"?
>> 
>>    From _knowing_ that the parameters needed to make a "proof" of the sort
>> you give worth spit are as yet undiscovered.  Until we find out how life can
>> arise and get a handle on the spped and complexity of evolution ALL PROBABILI
>> ESTIMATES FINER THAN 0<p<=1 are a priori bullshit.
> 
> I agree with you that, since no one can agree on a model for the
> evolution of life from matter, it is unscientific to claim that it
> happened. It is, therefore, an article of faith to state that one knows
> such evolution occured.

   Aaarrrgghhh!

   Read closely: ABIOGENESIS IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!  Evolution of "higher"
life forms does NOT depend on the way in which life started.  Your
probabilities for abiogenesis, flawed to begin with, cannot be linked to
the probability of further evolution.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: ecg@po.CWRU.Edu (Edward C. Goodwin)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Well oiled doctrine
Date: 6 Nov 1992 15:25:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


	While discussing generalities, an aquaintance of mine told me 
that two geologist friends of his had been retained by an oil company
to analyze pollen grains in oil bearing strata as a possible predictor
for finding oil.  As I know just enough geology to really get myself
into trouble, I happily chattered on about how the origin of oil was
still poorly understood (biogenic or not) and actually seems to collect
in pools by following strata rather than originating there.  Am I full
of it or are my vague recollections on this topic somewhat in line.
	In particular:
1).  Is oil definately known to be of biological origin?  Coal is
obviously formed from plant material but are there any characteristics
shared between oil and coal that might suggest a causal link?  Oil
consists of hydrocarbon chains while coal (I think) has a fair amount
of graphite and hydrocarbon rings.
2).  If oil is of biological origin, what happened to all the oxygen
in carbohydrates (cellulose etc...)?  There must be an incredable 
reducing environment to strip off these oxygens.
3).  Can oil formation be traced to any particular era of the earth's
history?

				Thanks in advance,

-- 
Ed Goodwin (1 kyu)			"Facts do not cease to exist
ecg@po.cwru.edu				 because they are ignored."
ecg@po.cwru.edu@cunynm (bitnet)		 -Aldous Huxley
Molecular Biologist to the Stars!
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:01:54 GMT

In article <JTPyTB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>If you have not made up your mind about the issue of evolution vs.
>creation, then why should you not take the time to acquire this book? If
>you have already made up your mind in favor of evolution, then why even
>bother with it?

Because I have seen dozens of "proofs" that evolution is bogus all of
which are complete garbage from beginning to end.  I have no reason to
assume that Dr. Thompson's proof is any different.  You will have to
convince me that he knows what he is talking about before I am going
to spend a serious amount of effort getting this book.

>I am not surprised that a huge materialistic institution like Stanford
>does not have this book. After all, it is "politically incorrect".

You will eat those words if (notice, I did not say "when") it turns out
that Thompson doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

>Kalki Dasa

C Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:40:47 GMT

In article <w33uTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
>> In article <PJHRTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> >and molecular biology. The proof is straightforward.
>> So post it.
>Read the book.

I have checked the Stanford library archives.  They don't have
it.  I can't get it through the local bookstores in any reasonable
amount of time.  I don't want to spend time and money in getting a book
which, if it is as good as other creationist works, isn't worth using
as a doorstop. Please post the proof if it is so blasted straightforward.
If I can't find one major flaw in the first paragraph I will be very
surprised.

C Frog
From: keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:10:20 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Nov6.215058.28738@cunews.carleton.ca> watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.201635.14018@athena.cs.uga.edu> keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
>>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. 
>
>I think not.  The number of protons in the entire universe is only something
>like 10^80. ("only" he says :-)
>

Hyperbole for the sake of argument- forgive me.  I think you got the idea,
though!  ;-)
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ted cleans up his act
Date: 14 Nov 92 04:02:23 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Nov10.232342.7077@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
^In article <105@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
^>In article <1992Nov7.120535.28586@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
^>> Congratulations, Ted, keep up the good work.
 
^>You're deriding me. . .

^You're behaving rather defensively, aren't you?  I interpreted Richard's
^message as sincere (and deserved) praise...  

Let me guess...

You'd also regard Pearl Harbor as a polite attempt to influence American
foreign policy in the Pacific rim?







-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:00:48 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>   Hold on.  We don't need to know what the actual event was, as long as we
> consider the probabilities of all possible mechanisms for abiogenesis.  If pn
> the probability of abiogenisis under mechanism n, then the probability of
> abiogenesis was 1-product(1-pn) (where product(x) is to multiply x out for ea
> n).
> 
>   So as long as the author considered ALL possible mechanisms for abiogenesis
> this isn't a problem.
> 
>   He did do that, Kalki, didn't he?

I notice that you are in the math department. You understand then that a
proof is something that follows logically from given premises. That is a
proof. There is no requirement that a proof is something that follows
from all possible premises. In fact, since all premises are negatable
(at least in standard excluded-middle logic), if all possible premises
were given there could be no proof, since premises would be assumed
along with their negations. Is it not so?

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: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Sexual Selection  (was: microevolution (the rest))
Date: 13 Nov 1992 19:27:28 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Nov13.174536.9622@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>In article <101715@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>In many species, especially polygynous species where 
>>only a few males monopolize all the females, sexual selection has caused 
>>pronounced sexual dimorphism.
>
>Does sexual selection always imply dimorphism?
>
>I'm inspired to ask this by a diopsid fly.  These flies have their
>eyes on stalks.  Sometimes the stalks are so long that their heads
>are wider than their body is long.  (They're really cool looking.)
>I was told that the long stalks are the result of sexual selection,
>but the little information about them which I've found gives no
>suggestion of sexual dimorphism.
>
>Are the diopsid's eye stalks really a result of sexual selection?
>Are there any other examples of sexual selection without sexual
>dimorphism?

This is a very interesting question, since both sexes of diopsids have
equally (roughly) stalked eyes.  I think that the other families of flies that
have stalked eyes (there are at least 3) are sexually dimorphic.

I've read studies where the males contest for lekking sites, and the winners
are usually those with the largest eye span, so the question is why are they
stalked in the females?  I would predict that when female behavior is
examined, some sort of competition between females is also found.  Perhaps
females defend oviposition sites or something.  Very little about their
biology is known, and that of the one species in the USA probably wouldn't
illuminate this question since their stalks are very short.

Mike Huben













Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck)
Subject: Re: Ted cleans up his act
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:19:27 GMT

[Ted's list of shame deleted]

I think this should serve as a warning to anyone who has direct
personal contact with Ted- he seems to be quite obsessive in
keeping track of things that offend him/Bales.  I read a
manager's "Danger Signs in Employees" pamphlet once, and
keeping a list of wrongs was a biggie.  I know those things
weren't directed at you, Ted, but don't you think that's a bit 
compulsive?  Obsessive?  Strange?